Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Tuesday 27 February

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS].

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Tuesday 27 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Pedestrian Safety

Mr. Paul Flynn: What progress has been made in reducing dangers to pedestrians from rigid car fronts. [148439]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): The European Commission has not yet made a formal proposal for making car fronts safer. On 6 February, the Commission hosted a meeting on this issue, and it is now considering how the matter should be taken forward. We are continuing to press for the best deal for pedestrians.

Mr. Flynn: May I congratulate my hon. Friend, and welcome him to his first Question Time as Minister? In Europe, 2,000 deaths and 18,000 serious accidents are caused every year by the rigid fronts of cars, usually by bullbars or by what the Americans call "killer grills". It is possible to prevent such deaths, given that the bullbars and rigid fronts concentrate and multiply the force of accidents. The effects are usually concentrated at the level of a child's head or the vital organs of an adult. Why is such slow progress being made on this matter? I do not question the enthusiasm of the British Government, but why is it taking so long to introduce the reforms? Lives are being sacrificed in the name of vanity and fashion.

Mr. Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcoming remarks, and congratulate him on his work

over a long period in advertising the effects of bullbars. He will know that we have commissioned research by the Transport Research Laboratory, and that we have put forward to the European Commission a proposal to include in pedestrian protection proposals for cars the banning of dangerous bullbars. We have also submitted a proposal showing how the existing external projections directive could be modified to proscribe the fitting of bullbars. Discussions are continuing after last Tuesday's Commission meeting, and we will continue to try to find the best way to make progress on proscribing bullbars.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is not a particular problem the large number of four-wheel drive vehicles on the road, some of which are excessively large, certainly for going down to Tesco's once a week? Is any special research being undertaken into the problems caused by such vehicles? If not, will the Minister initiate such research?

Mr. Ainsworth: As I said, we have had the Transport Research Laboratory do the research. It is true that such items are mostly fashion accessories. People do not realise how dangerous they are. We must advertise the fact that they are a danger and that people should not fit them. We must then make the best possible progress towards a ban on dangerous accessories on the front of cars.

Ports

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on modernising British ports. [148440]

Dr. Julian Lewis: What his policy is on the construction of container ports on non-brownfield sites. [148441]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Government announced the publication of a ports policy paper, "Modern Ports", on 27 November. Ports have an important role in integrated transport policy. The paper identifies a number of specific initiatives that we hope to pursue. We intend to promote better regulation of the industry, and agreed national standards and good practice for port management and port operations alike. The paper sets out a balanced policy on port development that aims to make the best use of existing and former operational land and secure high environmental standards while supporting sustainable projects for which there is a clear need.

Mr. Quinn: This is a very important strategy nationally, but the work to be undertaken soon in the port of Whitby will be extremely important to many of my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the harbour infrastructure developments in the port—to the tune of some £850,000, I understand—in addition to the needed rail and road land links into the port of Whitby, will deliver an important and viable future for my constituents? Will he support my plea for an inter-modal study to ensure that we can deliver the integrated transport policy to which he referred?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm support for the Government's new investment in the port


of Whitby. As he will be aware, my Department has approved nearly £500,000 for Whitby, and we have also approved investment worth £350,000 for the port of Scarborough. Both ports have received extra funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for other refurbishment projects totalling £500,000. My hon. Friend has made powerful representations in favour of improved rail connections to Whitby and road links to Scarborough. The Government are considering his proposals very carefully.

Dr. Lewis: The Minister having decided to group my question on the Government's policy on the construction of container ports on non-Brownfield sites with the previous question on the Order Paper, I am sorry that he has not felt able to answer it more specifically. Is he aware that yesterday Hampshire county council rejected by 21 votes to none to turn down the proposal to develop the Dibden bay container port on the edge of the New Forest? Is he aware of the devastating effects that that development would have on Totton and the people of the waterside villages if it went ahead? Does he know that Associated British Ports has now admitted that it is not part of a national economic need that this port needs to be developed? Can he reassure my constituents, who were extremely worried to hear the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, state on television on 8 February:
think it is a very valid proposal for developing a much needed container port in the United Kingdom.
Given that the Secretary of State has called in this proposal, how can we have confidence that it will be fairly and impartially adjudged when a PPS to a Minister in his Department appears to have made up his mind the wrong way in advance?

Mr. Hill: On the broad issue, we recognise that there are strong views about Associated British Ports' proposals to develop new port facilities at Dibden bay on Southampton water. That is exactly why we have recently announced our decision to call a public inquiry, which should start later this year.
In the circumstances, the House will understand that the Government cannot comment on the merits of the proposals. As regards his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), the hon. Gentleman really is a bit of a chump to bring such a matter to the Floor of the House. To set the record straight, what my hon. Friend actually said was that there was a balance to be struck between economic development and the environment, and that that was why we are having a public inquiry. In my experience, my hon. Friend is usually right about everything, and in this matter he was, as usual, spot on.

Dr. Jack Cunningham: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and invite him to visit the historic port of Whitehaven, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has done on previous occasions. If he does so, he will see the enormous potential of the regeneration of the port for tourism, water sports and fishing, but does he recognise that the full potential can never be realised unless road improvements are carried out? Will he therefore look very closely at the proposal to improve the A595 from Lily Hall to Parton? It is a modest scheme in

national terms, but would nevertheless be of enormous economic and social benefit to Whitehaven and the people of West Cumbria, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savo ur s).

Mr. Hill: Of course I would love to visit the port of Whitehaven. The Government are committed to improving both rail and road links to ports as part of our 10-year plan for transport. I am aware of the campaign for the road, spearheaded by the Whitehaven News, and of the fact that the road was Cumbria's third priority in its recent local transport plan.
The Government have indicated that we expect to receive further local transport plan submissions in the summer, and I look forward to the opportunity of considering Cumbria's proposal for the road in its next set of plans.

Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Minister go back to th,, issue of Dibden bay and answer the question that has been posed by Mr. Brian Dash, the local county councillor who for the past 10 years has led the campaign against the development, about whether it is in the national interest? Successive Ministers in this Government and the previous Government have made the point that the Dibden bay development should not go ahead unless it can be conclusively proved that it is in the national interest for it to do so. As that manifestly is not the case, will the Minister confirm that the public inquiry is a complete waste of time?

Mr. Hill: I suspect that those who take an opposing view on the Dibden bay development might consider that it manifestly is in the national interest. It is precisely to determine whether the, development is in the national interest that we have convened the public inquiry to which I have referred. Furthermore, it may in due course be necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a decision about what is or is not in the national interest.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the success of the port of Dover, which is still a trust port and is the busiest ferry port in the world? When he makes representations on the European directive on ports, will he acknowledge the special differences between ports in the United Kingdom and ports on the continent? Will he ensure that the framework is set up in such a way that the rules do not prescribe against ports such as Dover and that those ports will not be disadvantaged?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, as ever, a doughty advocate of the port of Dover. Representations on the matter have been received from the UK Major Ports Group; we are also aware of the views of the British Ports Association and of several port and terminal operators. Our general policy on the proposed directive is to support the broad principles of liberalisation and competition in the provision of port services, subject to appropriate safeguards and standards.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What is the point of a ports policy, or, indeed, of an integrated transport policy, that does not address the most important issue


facing ports, especially in the south-east—that of capacity? Is the hon. Gentleman mare that the industry forecasts that ports serving the south-east are likely to run out of container capacity within the next one to two years? Is that not typical of the Government's integrated transport policy? The policy is merely more pretty pictures, more warm words and more truisms. Like the railway, the tube and the road jams—the worst we have ever had—the Minister's policy is nothing but paralysis by analysis. [Interruption.]

Mr. Hill: That was, "paralysis by analysis"—just in case the House did not get it.
The hon. Gentleman really should have a word with his colleague, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and with his Front-Bench colleagues who are looking daggers at his back. Do I detect the possibility of a division on this matter among Opposition Members?

Concessionary Bus Fares

Mr. Jim Marshall: If he will make a statement on his support for concessionary bus fares for pensioners. [148443]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Local authorities in England spend more than £390 million on concessionary bus fares each year—money largely funded by central Government. The local government finance settlement for 2001–02 takes account of local authorities' responsibilities in this area. In particular, we have injected an extra £54 million to cover the additional costs of introducing the mandatory half-fare scheme for pensioners and disabled people under the Transport Act 2000.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon Friend for that reply. Perhaps this is a rare occasion. May I congratulate the Government on the implementation of another election pledge—namely the introduction of mandatory concessionary fares. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many pensioners and disabled people are likely to benefit directly as a consequence of the scheme? For the information of the House, can he also tell us the view of the Tory Opposition on the scheme when it was debated in the Standing Committee?

Mr. Hill: I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's congratulations. Our mandatory concessionary travel scheme will guarantee at least half fares on local buses for pensioners and disabled people. The bus pass will be free of charge. Where more generous schemes are already in place, they will, of course, continue. The scheme will come into effect from 1 April in Greater London and from 1 June in the rest of England. We expect about 5.5 million pensioners and up to a further 1.5 million disabled people to benefit from the new arrangements.
Notwithstanding the Conservatives' new-found passion for pensioners, it is worth recalling that the Conservative party voted against the scheme. The scheme will be especially welcomed by pensioners in those Conservative-controlled authorities where, until now, there have been no concessionary fares schemes at all.

Mr. Don Foster: Given that we read in the newspapers today that the Government are keen to outlaw age discrimination, will the Minister explain why the Government want to continue the discrimination whereby a man has to wait until the age of 65 to receive a concessionary bus pass even though a woman receives one at the age of 60? Is the Minister aware of the case before the European Court, and of the fact that he only has until next week to make a decision on whether to contest that case, at great expense to the Government, or to accept that, on entitlement to bus concessions, there should be equality for men and women at age 60?

Mr. Hill: The Government certainly are aware of the Matthews case, which is before the European Court, to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. We are considering the implications of that case and our response.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my hon. Friend endeavour to speak to Tory-controlled Gedling borough council, which, despite the extra money that we have put into the half-fare scheme, has decided to axe the full-fare pass scheme for pensioners from April 2001? Will he do all that he can to get Tory-controlled Gedling borough council to change its mind because thousands of pensioners in my constituency are outraged at the fact that the council is receiving extra money but choosing to axe the full-fare scheme?

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case in condemnation of that Tory authority. I very much hope that that Tory authority will understand the force of his representations and the passions of local pensioners. It is an absolute outrage that Tory-controlled Gedling borough council has abolished the full-fare pass for pensioners from 1 April 2001.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister has visited Purbeck on several occasions. I wonder whether he will have a word with the treasurer of Purbeck district council, who tells us that the bus concessionary scheme that it is being forced to introduce, which is very welcome to Purbeck pensioners, will put their council tax bills up by as much as 17 per cent. Will he please look at where the money has gone to, because it certainly has not arrived in Purbeck to pay for the scheme?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the situation in Purbeck. My presumption is that, heretofore, Purbeck has not provided such a concessionary fare scheme. The reality is that, although the Government, by allocating £54 million extra to local authorities, has made a proportionate allocation to each authority to allow it to introduce the scheme, those Scrooge authorities that heretofore have not had such a concessionary fare scheme will have to bear some pain in the process. However, the hon. Gentleman should think not only of the implications for the local ratepayers, but of the wonderful opportunities that will be opened up to pensioners in that locality.

Local Strategic Partnerships

Mrs. Joan Humble: If he will make a statement on the new local strategic partnerships. [148444]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Local strategic partnerships will provide a single, overarching local co-ordination framework, which will enable local stakeholders to address issues that really matter to local people. They will prepare and implement local community strategies and local neighbourhood renewal strategies. They will allocate neighbourhood renewal funds, which have now doubled to £200 million for next year, and rationalise local partnerships, working to deliver better services.

Mrs. Humble: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She can be assured that the additional £6.5 million of neighbourhood renewal funding allocated to Blackpool over the next three years will be very warmly welcomed by my constituents. Will she confirm that the successful existing partnerships that Blackpool council has developed can form the basis for the new local strategic partnership, so that that very welcome additional investment can be effectively targeted for the benefit of my constituents?

Ms Armstrong: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her commitment to ensuring that the deprivation is effectively tackled in Blackpool, and, indeed, elsewhere. This Government have recognised the importance of effectively targeting deprivation, wherever it arises. I assure my hon. Friend that local agencies should seek to build on the local arrangements that have already worked well, rather than starting again from scratch. As cross-sector, cross-agency umbrella partnerships, LSPs offer real opportunities to streamline existing partnership arrangements and to make them more effective, by making better connections between individual initiatives.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Could the right hon. Lady put her first answer into plain English?

Ms Armstrong: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not able to hear because of the way in which his colleagues on the Front Bench were behaving. We are establishing local strategic partnerships throughout the country. Each local authority is working out how it can most effectively develop a strategic partnership that has an overview of the whole area, and really ensure that it identifies the strategic priorities, who will work on them and how they can ensure that services work much better in their areas. I am sure the hon. Gentleman supports that objective.

Global Warming

Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on discussions between his Department and the new US Administration on global warming. [148446]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The Government are keen to encourage the new United States Administration to engage constructively on climate change. We have supported the deferral of the next round of talks by a few weeks to give them more time to prepare. I shall be taking every opportunity to raise the issue with the United States, including at the G8 Environment Ministers meeting in Italy next month. I have also asked

colleagues to do the same and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary raised the matter with Colin Powell when he met him last week. However, this is not just about the United States; we will, of course, continue to discuss the way forward with other countries.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for that informative reply. The United States Administration asked for the resumption of the talks in Bonn to be postponed. What can we read into that? Are they dragging their feet, or does Colin Powell, the new Secretary of State, need more time to prepare the new Bush Administration's case on global warming?

Mr. Prescott: My interpretation of the events is that the United States could have attended the conference in May and refused to co-operate with its objectives. The fact that the Administration have asked for more time, are seriously considering the issue and are appointing new officials to negotiate on their behalf is a hopeful sign, and I am forever optimistic in such matters.

Mr. David Prior: In the Secretary of State's discussions on global warming, will he do his best to maintain the fuel duty differential between liquified petroleum gas and other fuels?

Mr. Prescott: Anything that encourages people to make a better environmental contribution, including the greater use of environmentally friendly fuels, is to be encouraged. Tax arrangements which are dealt with by the Chancellor, are also important. We are making headway in such matters.

Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend consider early-day motion 232 on climate change, which has been signed by 122 Members and which welcomes the e-campaign T.5.20? Does he agree that a country with 5 per cent. of the world's population that produces 20 per cent. of the world's greenhouse emissions has a particular responsibility to get its policy right? Giving it a little more time is probably appropriate in this case.

Mr. Prescott: It is right to give everyone an opportunity to meet the objectives to which they signed up as part of the Kyoto agreement. Indeed, the recent UN conference in China on climate change revealed new and stronger evidence to show that global warming is continuing to increase and to have an effect on the environment, and that it is created by manmade activities. We are all beholden to take steps to reduce such activities.

Mr. Damian Green: It is instructive that Labour Back Benchers wish to express their suspicions of a new American Administration who have been in office for fewer than three weeks, rather than performing the role of the House in holding our Government—in this case, the Deputy Prime Minister—to account. The right hon. Gentleman led the European negotiators at The Hague with such diplomatic finesse that, when the talks failed, he characteristically blamed everyone else and his colleague, the French Minister, said that
he lost his nerve, he lost his cool",


and, for good measure, that he was "a male chauvinist pig." Can he assure the House that, in the interests of the country's reputation and the future of such vital negotiations, he will play no further personal role in those talks?

Mr. Prescott: A typical Opposition question. The hon. Gentleman has the facts wrong. I did participate in leading the negotiations at Kyoto because, at that time, Britain was one of the three parties involved in the presidency, and I therefore played a part. That was not the case at The Hague because the meeting was controlled by France, not Britain. However, I hope that I played a positive role by suggesting a way in which we could reach an agreement. I am grateful that the terms of the negotiations are still on the table for discussion. That is a step forward and I shall not be put off by silly, stupid remarks by the Opposition.

British Waterways

Mr. Alan Meale: If he will make a statement on improvements to British waterways. [148447]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): British Waterways has made tremendous strides in delivering the targets that we set it during my hon. Friend's period as waterways Minister, turning what had been a liability into an extremely important asset. We have significantly increased public investment in British Waterways. It expects to eliminate its safety-related backlog by 2004 instead of 2006. The document "Waterways for Tomorrow" reported on British Waterways' initiatives to work with the voluntary sector and to establish new public-private partnerships in telecommunications, property and water transfer.

Mr. Meale: I thank the Government for their continued commitment to British Waterways, and I pay particular tribute to the strong leadership of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Department any nearer to achieving a single navigational authority for all the waterways in Britain, which would help modernisation?

Mr. Meacher: I pay a warm and well-deserved tribute to my hon. Friend for his close interest in British Waterways and for the fact that, under his stewardship, the inland waterways were turned into the much more dynamic and successful enterprise that they are today. There has been a huge increase in funding—it has almost tripled since 1997—and a long history of under-investment has been reversed. "Waterways for Tomorrow", which the Deputy Prime Minister launched last June, considered several options, including the one to which my hon. Friend drew attention. That is still under discussion with the new, dynamic chairman and chief executive of British Waterways, and we hope to make an announcement before long.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Many of us have unexpectedly acquired waterways in our constituencies, as I have in Redbourn, because of flooding and burst mains, and the only improvement that we want is to return those waterways to roads. That is held up by a shortage of tankers. Will the Minister investigate the

possibility of releasing tankers from the emergency services to supplement those provided by Thames Water and the county council?

Mr. Meacher: I think that that question goes rather wide of British Waterways. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman, who inherited this important asset, was unable to persuade his Government to end the huge under-investment that went on for 20 years. However, the point that the right hon. Gentleman made is sensible, and I shall investigate it and write to him.

Local Authority Housing Investment

Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on investment in local authority housing. [148448]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government inherited a £19 billion backlog of council house renovation and improvement work. We have committed ourselves to bringing all council housing in England up to a decent standard by 2010. The resources provided to authorities for housing investment have been increased from £750 million in 1997-98 to £2.4 billion next year.

Ms Winterton: Council tenants in Doncaster are already seeing the extra money that is being invested in local authority housing beginning to reverse the years of under-investment under the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is aware not only of the amount of substandard housing in Doncaster but of the particular problems that we face, such as the need to improve former Coal Board housing? Will he assure me that he will consider those matters when reviewing the allocation of the major repairs allowance, so that housing in my constituency can become a right for all and not just a privilege for a few?

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments about the increases in capital spending. She will know that Doncaster is receiving £12.5 million in the current year and will receive £16.5 million next year. Those are substantial increases on the £5.5 million level inherited from the previous Government.
My hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties in her area and the need for a sustained programme of investment that brings together the resources of the local authority and all other bodies that are able to contribute. I am pleased to tell her that, only last Friday, I discussed with the leader of her local council and the cabinet member with responsibility for housing some of the specific issues affecting Doncaster and ways in which they can best proceed, with the Government's full support, to tackle those problems more effectively.

Mr. Richard Allan: Local authority tenants in Sheffield are keen that additional investment be made in their homes and are considering questions relating to the future tenure of their housing. Will the right hon. Gentleman assist their deliberations by making clear any link that exists between future investment arrangements and future tenure arrangements? Are the Government entirely neutral on who owns the


housing, or is additional investment made available if housing is transferred from the local authority to other social housing providers?

Mr. Raynsford: We have made it clear to local authorities that they have four options to consider in relation to the future of their stock. Those include continuing to administer their housing through a housing revenue account managed by the local authority; the possibility of acting through an arm's-length management company, as set out in our proposals in the housing Green Paper, whereby ownership remains with the local authority but the housing is managed at arm's length; the private finance initiative, under which £600 million additional credits will be made available to allow private sector involvement, but with ownership remaining with the local authority; and large-scale voluntary transfer to a registered social landlord. Those are the four options; all have a different impact and we expect local authorities to analyse the financial implications for themselves and to conclude which is the best option for their area. The Government have no preference and are not pressing local authorities to pursue any one of the four options.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I put it to my right hon. Friend that, instead of being given four options, local authorities are being directed towards only one option: stock transfer. At the meeting last Friday, it was made plain to him by the leader of Barnsley council that the council has no money in its accounts for housing improvements because it has been transferred to the major repairs allowance or the housing revenue account. Arm's-length companies will be available to no more than half a dozen local authorities, so some authorities such as mine, which has already held a ballot in which stock transfer was rejected, are between the devil and the deep blue sea. They are being forced down one line by the Government and not being given money for repairs if they want to keep their council housing.

Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend, as I told his colleague the leader of Barnsley council at that meeting, that Barnsley has benefited from one of the largest increases in local authority capital funding of any local authority in the country—it is well above the national average. We want to work with Barnsley council and other local authorities to ensure the best possible outcome. It is right that authorities consider a range of options. I know that Barnsley considered stock transfer but that, by a narrow majority, tenants voted against it. I am sure that Barnsley council, like other authorities, will continue to do its best to use the substantially increased resources that the Government have made available, and that it will choose the option that is best for the interests of its tenants and housing in its area.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the Minister recall that, prior to the last election, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pledged:
We need an emergency programme to reduce the number of empty properties, including those held by government departments"?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the latest figures show 762,000-odd empty properties in England—seven empty houses or flats for every homeless household—and that the number of empty council housing units in England

was 84,000, up 3,000 since 1997? As Ministers play their own private version of "Monopoly" with their personal property empires, will they spare an occasional thought for those in housing need?

Mr. Raynsford: The Government have introduced a series of measures to encourage empty properties being brought back into use. In particular, we have taken effective action to bring empty Government property back into use. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman of our success in that respect: when the Conservative party was last in power, the Ministry of Defence had 14,000 empty properties; that figure is now down to 10,700—far too many, but decreasing. Under Conservative stewardship, my Department, now the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, had more than 1,000 empty properties; last year, that figure was down to 241. The current Government are taking action to produce results and to reduce the number of empty properties in this country.

Mr. Neil Turner: May I press my right hon. Friend on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) about local authority housing? It is important that those authorities that eschew large-scale voluntary transfer are not penalised. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those authorities that do not go through the LSVT option will not be penalised either through rents or access to capital for improvements in their housing stock?

Mr. Raynsford: It is difficult to see how local authorities have been penalised in a year when they have received a 51 per cent. increase in their capital allocations. Next year, authorities across the country are due to receive a further 26 per cent. increase in capital allocations. The Government are increasing funding to local authorities and we want them to reach a sensible choice, bearing in mind the need to improve their stock and to use all available options. We have said that that is a matter for each local authority to decide, bearing in mind the resources available to them and the Government's commitment to increase funding.

Regional Government

Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on his policy concerning regional government. [148449]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We remain committed to a move to directly elected regional government, where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. While no timetable has yet been drawn up, governance in the regions is already evolving through the work of the chambers, regional development agencies, Government offices and others.

Mr. Luff: The Secretary of State has helpfully reconfirmed the Government's position on regional government, as originally set out in the Labour party manifesto at the general election. That confirmed that


where regional government was introduced, a tier of local government would have to be abolished. I quote:
Our plans will not mean adding a new tier of government to the existing English system.
Which tier of local government will the Government abolish? Is it to be county councils, as most of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends seem to be suggesting? If so, will he campaign for the abolition of county councils during the elections to those bodies in May?

Mr. Prescott: The sound of elections and county council elections is round the corner. As I have always said, I think both sides of the House are agreed that local government unitary authorities are the first tier of the local government structure. As for the second, regional tier, we shall put forward a list of options to the electorate that will be ready for the referendums for each region, and allow them to make a decision. That has always been our position, and it is the one that we shall be presenting to the electorate.

Dr. David Clark: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that probably the greatest feeling for regional government in England is in the northern region? Does he further appreciate that that feeling is strengthening, bearing in mind the relationship with devolved government across the Scottish border? With that in mind, will he consider the possibility that the northern region should again be reunited, and that a common region facing the Scottish border, including the north of Cumbria, should be involved in a new northern regional assembly?

Mr. Prescott: I find in my journeys around the country that there is a growing feeling for some form of regional government and that that is as strong in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside as in the northern area. There has been a long history of demands for regional government in the northern region, and I am supportive of that. We must ascertain exactly what that opinion is, and we will do that by referendum. There is the age-old argument in the north about whether the region should cover Cumbria; it is a judgment that must be arrived at later.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the primary purpose of regional government is not to take functions from local government but to give democratic accountability for regional activities, which are mainly undertaken now by central Government, to the regions? Is he able to tell us whether we might have a referendum within two years of the general election?

Mr. Prescott: I shall leave those comments to be made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have always believed in the regional government argument. It is important to recognise, first, that regional government should involve the decentralising of power and government functions from central Government to the regions. Secondly, we should not make the mistake of centralising in a region in the name of decentralisation. These are thoughts that we shall have in mind when we put the options to the electorate.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome his first reply on the subject this afternoon? Is he also aware of the assemblies' and RDAs' lack of democratic accountability? That accountability can come only from regional assemblies, so it should be a major priority for the Government after the next election.

Mr. Prescott: I certainly believe that it should be a priority. On the form of regional government, we have made it clear that people in the regions will make that decision, and we will draw up several alternatives for them to consider in the referendum.

Mr. Archie Norman: Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that it is a good use of taxpayers' money for RDAs to set up expensive new offices in Brussels?

Mr. Prescott: I believe that the RDAs need to be represented where they can make decisions and where European decisions clearly affect their regions. As for the judgment about whether or not such offices are expensive, I do not know which one the hon. Gentleman is referring to. However, I get very suspicious of any talk from the Opposition about figures, particularly in view of the fact that they said that they would save £200 million by scrapping regional chambers, when no such commitment has ever been given; that is a black hole in the hon. Gentleman's own finances.

Mr. Norman: Most people in this country believe that is for the Government to represent us in Brussels as one country, not a nation divided into regions, each with its hand out. Is it right for the West Midlands regional development agency to have an office of up to 12 people and a budget of £1 million? Does it make sense to have five other RDAs with their own offices, and three more planning to set up offices, at great expense to the taxpayer? Is that not another illustration of the dissipation of the effort created by the RDAs and the cost to the taxpayer of unaccountable regional bureaucracies?

Mr. Prescott: What I find a little difficult to accept about the hon. Gentleman's arguments is the fact that he makes great complaint about the English RDAs, but has nothing to say about Scotland and Wales, even though he is prepared to abolish RDAs in England, yet retain them as government for Scotland and Wales. As for the role and importance of the RDAs, we have found that the RDA played an important part in Birmingham in solving the problems of Rover and the motor car industry. RDAs are playing a part now in helping to develop regional economies.
The hon. Gentleman should make it clear to the House where he stands on those matters of regional government. On Sunday 29 January, he talked about regional government on "The Westminster Hour" and said:
Well yes I think that, em, we're also pragmatic and we recognise that there's no fixed formula. Different solutions are right for different areas".
That is right; that is our position. Does the hon. Gentleman concur with that?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I give my right hon. Friend a good reason for introducing


a north-west regional assembly? Such an assembly would enable us, finally, to have in place a mechanism for keeping the North West Development Agency under control.

Mr. Prescott: I think that there is a strong history behind that inquiry. My hon. Friend is right: development agencies should be accountable to representative bodies, whether directly or indirectly, whether elected or appointed. It is for the people of a region to make their decision, and the RDAs are but a tool for the development of the region to which they should be accountable.

Fuel Duty

Mr. John Bercow: What recent representations he has received from the British Road Federation about the level of fuel duty. [148450]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Government receive representations from a wide range of interested bodies, including the British Road Federation, regarding the level of fuel duty and transport policy. Those are considered carefully and help to inform the Chancellor's Budget judgment.

Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his informative, comprehensive and inspiring reply. Is it not a fact that, after nearly four years of Labour Government, Britain's petrol, although among the cheapest in the European Union before tax, is the most expensive after tax?

Mr. Hill: I do not think that the House is likely to forget that the major source of the increase in fuel prices in recent years resulted from the previous Government's introduction of the fuel duty escalator. If there is any responsibility for the situation in which the underlying rate of increase results largely from the increase in oil prices, it lies with the global price increase in oil and the activities of the previous Government.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the price of lead-free petrol in this country is virtually identical to that in France, whereas diesel is much cheaper on the continent? People may argue about prices, but do they want to pay the extremely expensive tolls that individuals have to pay in France to drive on the autoroutes?

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right. In the sometimes blinkered discussions of these matters, the total impact of various imposts on fuel are not taken into account. Notwithstanding the protestations of the Opposition, the costs of motoring are lower now than they were 30 years ago, in 1970.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Minister is aware that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land frontier, and that the significant differentials in fuel duty between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic have an extremely detrimental impact on the petrol retail industry and the

road haulage industry in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister make representations to the Treasury to have the matter addressed?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight into the situation in Northern Ireland. He is aware, of course, that ministerially I have no direct responsibility for the situation in Northern Ireland, but I undertake to convey his observations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Contaminated Land

Mr. Mark Hendrick: If he will make a statement on cleaning up contaminated land. [148451]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We are committed to cleaning up the legacy of contaminated land left unremedied by the previous Government. We brought a new regulatory framework into force in April 2000. We have also made significant public funds available both for remedying contaminated land and for reclaiming derelict land.

Mr. Hendrick: Is my hon. Friend aware that low-level radioactive waste is being dumped at Clifton Marsh, on the outskirts of Preston, causing great concern to the residents of Preston and the Fylde? Can she give me some reassurance that the activities taking place there are safe, and are not a threat to public health or the environment?

Ms Hughes: I understand residents' concerns, in view of what has been in the newspapers. My hon. Friend knows that the Environment Agency is carrying out an investigation into those claims. The preliminary investigation has found nothing to suggest that radioactive materials significantly above the de minimis level allowed under the current legislation have been deposited. The agency is continuing to investigate and, if any further information emerges, it will be made available at the earliest opportunity. The EA undertakes regular monitoring, including checks on randomly selected skips, and the results are routinely published annually. To date, nothing unusual has been found, and regulatory conditions have not been found to have been breached. On that basis, I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks.

Mr. Tom Brake: Has the Minister considered the impact that a greenfield development tax would have on the amount of contaminated land that could be cleaned up?

Ms Hughes: The Government have brought in a range of measures to ensure that we make progress on cleaning up contaminated land That includes bringing into force regulations laid by the previous Government, who took no action to implement them and refused to make available the resources that local authorities and other agencies need to progress those orders and to make sure that contaminated land is cleared. Actions speak louder than words, and we have taken the necessary action.

Neighbourhood Renewal

Mr. Ivan Henderson: If he will make a statement on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. [148452]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Government's action plan, "A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal", was published on 15 January and sets out our vision for narrowing the gap between poor neighbourhoods and the rest of the country. It aims to deliver economic prosperity, safe communities, high quality schools, decent housing and better health to the poorest parts of the country.

Mr. Henderson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and welcome the introduction of the neighbourhood management programmes that are about to be introduced. They will cover areas in my constituency where there are pockets of deprivation, such as Jaywick, where the grasslands, greens and village areas desperately need help for their roads, poor housing, street lighting, health problems, law and order problems and education problems. Will my right hon. Friend consider seriously any proposal put forward by the local strategic partnership in that area for future bids that would reflect the aims of such programmes?

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the tenacious way in which he has continued to put the case for the people of Jaywick. He will know that more than £6 million has been allotted to the neighbourhood in the past five years to enable it to seek improvements. It is eligible to apply for neighbourhood management but, as he knows, Jaywick needs the two councils to provide leadership and to recognise that they must pull agencies together to ensure progress. I hope that he will continue to work with them to ensure that that happens.

Empty Homes

Sandra Gidley: What steps he is taking to bring empty homes back into use. [148453]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The urban and rural White Papers, which we published in November, and our housing policy statement, which we published in December, set out a series of proposals that we are pursuing to bring more empty homes back into use. Those proposals include new tax concessions, guidance for local authorities and owners, and increased funding for the Empty Homes Agency.

Sandra Gidley: According to the Empty Homes Agency, there are 87,400 empty homes in the south-east, which is under huge pressure for more house build. Given that that is the case, will the Government admit that although they have said much about the theory of using a sequential approach, involving the use of existing stocks before greenfield land is released for building, they are not doing anything to make that a reality? When will local authorities be given powers to make landlords return empty houses to the housing market? Will the Secretary of State impress upon the Chancellor the need to make

repairs to existing buildings more affordable by equalising VAT on repairs and new build at a lower rate than at present?

Mr. Raynsford: The Government have done a great deal to change the emphasis and to focus on brownfield and inner-city development, rather than on allowing the profligate greenfield development that was so characteristic of the Conservative party when it was in power. The hon. Lady will be aware of the measures announced by the Government in respect of bringing empty properties back into use. Those measures have been welcomed by the Empty Homes Agency, which says:
We are pleased that senior Ministers are talking about tackling empty homes and the recent policy changes introduced by the Government on planning and new housing provision that encourage using existing empty homes first will make a difference.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful empty housing scheme initiated by Southampton city council? The scheme is called "Opening up the Empties" and is a partnership initiative that encourages the return to use of empty private sector homes. Will he encourage other local authorities to follow Southampton's example and to undertake similar schemes?

Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to agree entirely with my hon. Friend that Southampton's approach to tackling empty properties has been exemplary. It was one of the pioneering authorities in terms of its empty homes strategy, and Councillor Paul Jenks and his colleagues in Southampton deserve every congratulation on what they have done. They have been trailblazers, and if other authorities followed their lead more effectively, further action would be taken in bringing empty properties back into use.

Mr. James Gray: What will the Minister do about local authorities such as Liberal Democrat-controlled North Wiltshire district council? Some five years ago, it sold off all of its council houses for £90 million and has since spent some £50 million of that money on assorted schemes, but has not built one single house, until now, when it is spending £25 million on building a new headquarters for itself. North Wiltshire has problems with empty homes and housing, but what can we do about the Liberals there?

Mr. Raynsford: I have to say that I have no responsibility for the Liberal party, either here or in North Wiltshire. I am, however, responsible for housing policy. It is the Government's objective to ensure that all authorities create strategies to make best use of the housing in their areas. That should include bringing empty homes into use. Authorities must also meet the needs of their populations through partnership with the private sector and registered social landlords, and use the additional resources that the Government are making available to them. We regret it very much when individual authorities fail to show the enthusiasm that is necessary to tackle problems in their areas.

Health and Safety (Vinyl Chloride Monomer)

Mr. Harry Barnes: What action he is taking to protect workers from exposure to vinyl chloride monomer; and if he will make a statement. [148454]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The control of substances hazardous to health regulations require employers to prevent or control exposure of their employees to vinyl chloride monomer, and several approved codes of practice give practical guidance on the application of the regulations to vinyl chloride. The Health and Safety Commission will consult about proposals to introduce a more stringent exposure limit for vinyl chloride monomer before the European Union directive is introduced.

Mr. Barnes: Workers at the former Vinatex plant in my constituency were exposed to VCM, and many developed cancer. Recent research by the International Agency for Research on Cancer suggests that exposure to

cancers through VCM is much wider than was previously believed. Will the Minister consider reinstating the angio-sarcoma register which details such matters, and extending it to include the new information that the survey reveals?

Mr. Meacher: I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has pursued issues that relate to exposure to chemicals in more than one case in his constituency, which I have visited.
Vinatex was a PVC manufacturer at Staveley until 1985. As my hon. Friend said, much research has been carried out, not least by the trade union safety team, into effects on the workers at the plant. It was published last September and showed a higher incidence of respiratory problems than expected, as well as other conditions.
The Health and Safety Executive has established a national register of angio-sarcoma cases to document more accurately the incidence of that rare cancer and to evaluate its possible occupational associations more generally. I want that work to be completed and I am keen to follow it up by taking the necessary action to protect workers better in future.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about Adjournment debates. In Westminster Hall on Tuesday mornings this Session, there have been three one-hour debates followed by three half-hour debates. The Modernisation Committee's report, which was approved by the House on 20 November last year, allows a measure of flexibility. In the light of experience, I have decided that, from Tuesday 27 February, the three one-hour debates should be replaced by two one-and-a-half-hour debates.
There is a further point about Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall and the Chamber. I find an increasing tendency for hon. Members who apply for debates to be selective about the day of the week on which they want to hold them. That complicates the administration of the ballot and can lead to unfairness for those who make no such stipulations. In future, my office will give priority to applications from hon. Members that contain no date restrictions. In addition, any hon. Member who withdraws from an allocated Adjournment debate will not be permitted to re-enter the ballot for a period of four weeks.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you, as well as the relevant Department, notice of my point of order.
Today, the Government published their much-trailed White Paper on industrial competitiveness. First, is it right that such an important subject should be launched by written parliamentary answer at 8.30 this morning rather than by oral statement, which would allow hon. Members to scrutinise its content?
Secondly, the relevant documents were not available until ten past 12 this afternoon, after the press conference that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry called to present his view.
Thirdly, the entire contents of the White Paper were reported in this morning's newspapers. The reports contained accurate quotes from the text of the document. Is not it a clear abuse, and contempt of the House, for the Government again to leak in detail their policy proposals to the press when denying hon. Members the opportunity to see the documents or to cross-examine the Government on them?
We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to stand up for the rights of the House against a Government who are determined to avoid critical scrutiny of their policy proposals. I ask you to do that in this instance.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me respond to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat- Amory). I am grateful to him for giving me notice of his point of order. He has raised a number of issues.
It is, as he knows, for Ministers to decide whether they make announcements to Parliament by means of an oral statement or a written answer. I have no comment to make on the Secretary of State's decision in that regard.
I understand that the answer was available at 8.30 this morning, and that copies were placed in the Library and the Vote Office. Copies of the White Paper should have

been in the Vote Office from 11 o'clock, but there was a delay in their delivery. I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to establish how that delay occurred, and to ensure that it does not happen again.
I take very seriously indeed the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the content of the White Paper appeared in the press this morning. It seems to me that there is a close correspondence between the White Paper and the press articles. I think, therefore, that it would be reasonable for me to ask the Secretary of State to undertake an investigation into how this occurred, and to report the results to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order arising from your original statement, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that some Members belong to organisations such as the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. When applying for Adjournment debates, they normally inform you of the dates on which they do not expect to be in the House. They do so in order not to show disrespect to the House by having to refuse a particular date, rather than to seek privilege. From what you have said, it seems possible that hon. Members who are also members of such bodies might, to a degree, be placed at a disadvantage.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that Thursdays and Fridays are the unpopular days for Adjournment debates.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State for Scotland, or from one of her Ministers, to come to the House to make a statement about her involvement and that of her Department in the cancellation of the Taoiseach's visit to Scotland last weekend, and about the subsequent resignation of her Parliamentary Private Secretary? The right hon. Lady has spent part of today making pronouncements away from the House about her role, or lack of it, in the matter, but has suggested that questions in the House could be answered by anyone, not necessarily from her own Department.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The answer to that is no. The hon. Gentleman applied for a private notice question on this matter, which I refused. I had hoped that that would be the end of it so far as I was concerned.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about you, but in the course of the past few weeks, we have had Tories getting up and saying that they want statements, and you have had to reply to them. Sometimes you have had to do a bit of research to provide an authoritative answer. We know that the Tories are changing their policies on everything, and yesterday they demanded that a Minister should not make a statement to the House. I know that you have to respond to these idiots, Mr. Speaker. One day they want a statement, the next day they do not. Today, they want one again. Where the hell are we going?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman uses such terms against the Opposition.

Mr. John Bercow: He used to be Dennis Skinner.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) always comes up with points of order and tries to give me advice, for which I am always grateful.

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your statement on Adjournment debates, almost all of which I heartily welcome, may I ask whether your restriction on the priority in ballots will apply when Members are concerned about their Fridays for the simple reason that many of them fill up their Fridays will constituency engagements, including constituency surgeries? Those of us who regularly apply for Adjournment debates know only at very short notice whether we have been successful, and, if we have not, it could be too late to do useful work for our constituents on the Fridays in question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know by now that it is entirely up to him if he wishes to attend to his constituents in his constituency. If he wishes to apply for an Adjournment debate, which I take to be of benefit to at least one of his constituents, he must make a judgment. It is all a question of judgment.

Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that the whole House awaits, with fitting concern and apprehension, the report of the inquiry into the Hinduja affair. You will also know that there has been some speculation about the Cabinet Secretary's involvement, and that he has felt it necessary to write to a newspaper today on the subject.
The whole House wishes to safeguard and protect the independence and integrity of the civil service, including that gentleman's. He says that there is a note of his meeting with the Hindujas. Would you, Mr. Speaker—as our champion, and the personification of all that is good and noble about the House—ask the Prime Minister to ensure that a copy of that note is placed in the Library immediately, to avoid any further speculation about the Cabinet Secretary's involvement in these affairs?

Mr. Speaker: In spite of the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks, the answer is no.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the

Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall that took over an hour each were largely tied to Select Committee reports. Such debates have been increasingly used as a means of bringing a wide debate on various Select Committee reports to the Floor of the House. Further to points that have been made this afternoon, may we now take it that if there are to be more half-hour debates on Members' particular interests in future, we shall have the opportunity to debate more Select Committee reports in the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Lady misunderstood. Instead of three separate hour-long debates, we shall now have two debates lasting an hour and a half. That is my explanation.

Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling in relation to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Can you tell us within what time scale he will have to carry out his investigation, and whether, when he reports back to the House, he will do so by means of an oral statement or by some ether means?
Will you make it clear to those who might be less familiar with our procedures, Mr. Speaker, that there is a big difference between what happened yesterday, when the Government insisted on making a statement on a Green Paper in Opposition time, and what happened today, when the Government refused to make a statement on a White Paper in Government time?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we dealt with the second point yesterday. I would expect the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to conduct an inquiry and reach a conclusion within a reasonable time.

BILL PRESENTED

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. Don Foster, supported by Mr. Tom Brake, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. David Chaytor and Mr. Simon Thomas, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to draw up and implement polices to alleviate climate change; to require the setting of targets for the achievement of those policies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 44].

Rural Community Public Transport

Mr. David Prior: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to delegate further the provisions of rural public transport to voluntary organisations, district, town and parish councils; and to encourage and promote the use of such transport.
Many Members who are present today represent rural constituencies. They will be aware, as I am, of the difficulties faced by many people who live and work in the country. We are seeing an unprecedented decline in our local services: post offices, village shops, garages, youth clubs, community centres, the local doctor, the village pub and the local primary school. Many villages no longer have any of those services, and many villagers often have to make a 20-mile round trip to find them.
As local services have declined, transport has become more important. For many of my constituents, the car is an absolute necessity; it cannot remotely be described as a luxury. Indeed, for many families in which the husband and wife both work or there are small children, two cars are often essential.
As the Government have piled on fuel taxes, however, the cost of running a car has become prohibitively expensive. It is a necessity that many people can no longer afford. Some 20 per cent. of households in Norfolk do not have a car—or, if they do, it is only at the expense of something else, which seriously affects their quality of life. For many people—especially the young, the disabled, families on low incomes and those who are retired on fixed incomes—a car is simply too expensive. It is primarily with those people in mind that I am introducing this Bill. It is simply no good for the Government to continue to tax motorists without providing an alternative.
I do not believe, however, that the Government can produce a national blueprint for rural transport. The man in Whitehall invariably does not know best. It is time that the Government—who have taken centralisation, micro-management and bureaucracy to new heights—let go and left decision making to people who know the local situation and the needs of local people.
A good example of central Government getting it wrong was the original terms of the grant for rural bus services. County councils were not able to use the grant for existing bus routes. Consequently, sub-optimal routes were opened, leading to the frequent spectacle of large subsidised buses travelling half empty. The purpose of this Bill is to force the Government to decentralise decision making to the local communities that need and will use public transport. It is also designed to ensure that Government action supports voluntary organisations, not replaces them.
Last summer, I commissioned four students—Emily Hill, Kat Colley, Adam Rumley and Amy Weight—from Fakenham college, an excellent sixth form college in north Norfolk, to do a survey of public transport from the point of view of the young and to produce some recommendations. Their survey revealed that 102 of 135 students between 14 and 18 thought that their extracurricular, out-of-school-hours activities were severely restricted by inadequate public transport. Forty-nine students revealed that there was no regular bus service through their village, and 75 stated that no bus route went where they wanted to go at a time when they wanted to go there.
The truth is that young people without access to a car living in places such as north Norfolk are effectively marooned. They cannot go to the shops in the main town, Norwich, or to the leisure centre, the cinema or even the bowling alley in Fakenham. Other people suffer, too. School leavers find it difficult to get to work or to training courses. Wages are often very low in the country, and even with a regular job it is very expensive to run a car. There are not many jobs left in our villages, and the recession in agriculture is making them even harder to find.
Older people, mothers with young children and disabled people are literally stranded, unable to reach market towns. A report commissioned last year by the Countryside Agency showed that in villages with a population of fewer than 1,000, 31 per cent. of people thought that public transport was "very bad". The truth is that public transport is too limited in scope; timetables are inconvenient and infrequent; bus stops are often too far away and have no shelter; the service is not reliable; the service is slow because of the circuitous routes required; and it is expensive, especially for students.
I accept that there is no magic wand to wave. Students at Fakenham college and I have reached the same conclusion: we should invest in local community transport that is flexible and customer oriented—such as the dial-a-ride flexi-minibus scheme in North Walsham, in north Norfolk; the dial-a-medic-ride scheme, which provides door-to-door transport to the doctor's surgery; and the Age Concern minibuses in Fakenham and Sheringham. The Sheringham service is being expanded to serve various other towns in north Norfolk and is providing a service for young people, too.
In future, the North Walsham dial-a-ride service will target young people who want to go to Cromer and Sheringham on a Friday or Saturday night. That is what people want—a service that is driven by demand and has no fixed timetable and no fixed route. It cannot be provided on a county or a national basis; it has to be provided on a very local basis. Many of those schemes are run by volunteers and by charities that often need a few thousand pounds to run the bus, to fund a part-time driver, to advertise for volunteer drivers and to maintain the vehicle. It would make an enormous difference to such schemes if they were eligible for a rebate on fuel duty. I was encouraged by the proposal in the rural White Paper to set up a parish fund to support small-scale transport projects and to minimise bureaucracy. I have a horrible feeling that, in practice, the bidding procedure will be complicated and the bureaucratic checks a nightmare. We shall see.
The Government put integrated transport high on their agenda when they came to power. They have not delivered. Public transport has got worse, not better. Community transport determined and funded at the local level is a commonsense way forward. It will deliver flexibility, accessibility, convenience and good value.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Prior, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Keith Simpson, Mr. David Ruffley, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. John Whittingdale and Mr. Tim Collins.

RURAL COMMUNITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Mr. David: Prior accordingly presented a Bill to delegate further the provisions of rural public transport to voluntary organisations, district, town and parish councils; and to encourage and promote the use of such transport: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 46]

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 22nd January:

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at quarter past Eight o'clock.

3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.

4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and further message's from the Lords

5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or
(b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,
and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the Bill be completed in the House today. It is supplemental to the programme motion approved for the Committee stage that finished, as planned, on 8 February.
For most of the time in Committee we had a constructive debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who chaired the Committee, and to the Committee's members. We had a very constructive debate about the detail of the Bill, and that debate improved the Bill. The debate in Standing Committee finished on time, with no guillotines imposed, and in fact the Government offered to run longer on one evening than was required. We had constructive discussions and I hope that we can have them again for the rest of today. We have plenty of time between now and 8.15 to conclude the debate.
I commend the motion to the House and hope that we can get on with the debate.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Hon. Members will be familiar with the Government's proposal, which is a device for curtailing debate. However, this motion is an especially bad example, as connoisseurs of such matters among my hon. Friends will agree. This is the mother of Parliaments, and it might be useful if I explained to visitors how the device works and why they should appalled at the way in which the Government want to get their laws and run.
There has been no formal agreement between parties on the decision to complete the Bill's Report stage by 8.15 this evening. We were presented with a fait accompli, and the original deadline was earlier. I cannot believe that a major Bill, the subject of a Labour election manifesto pledge, is to be done and dusted by 9 o'clock tonight so that a second Bill can be considered before 10 pm. That beggars belief, and I hope that visitors to the House will be appalled.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend is setting out cogently the appalling behaviour of the Government on this Bill, as on so many others. However, there is no time limit on the second Bill to be considered today. Therefore, does she agree that, however much the Government may intend to force things through on a rushed timetable, they may find that things work out very differently?

Mrs. Spelman: I do not think that I need add anything to what my hon. Friend has said. Perhaps his intentions and those of some of my other right hon. and hon. Friends will now be clear.
It was quite unnecessary for the Government to curtail this debate, not least because I believe that the Bill that follows is, on the whole, uncontroversial. However, the haste with which it has been introduced may give my right hon. and hon. Friends a different belief as to its controversial nature.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that many of the amendments that have been tabled, particularly on Friday, show that the Government have been caught by their own great rush. In effect, some 24 hours after denying that they were going to make changes, the Government have tabled amendments. Surely a bit more lime would allow the Minister to get her Bill into some sort of order.

Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He served on the Standing Committee and was particularly affected by the haste with which the Bill was considered. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work. His knowledge of the internet and the way in which the internet service providers are likely to be affected by the Bill was invaluable. We shall come back to that tonight. I think that all right hon. and hon. Members would benefit from hearing what my hon. Friend has to say on the way new technology will be affected, but of course there is a risk. Curtailing the debate on Report by 8.15 means that we may not even reach that important part of the Bill. That is just one of the problems imposed by the guillotine.
I thought that it might be helpful to right hon. and hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee, those who read Hansard, and visitors listening to the debate if I explained the background to the programme motion. Second Reading took place just over three weeks ago, on 22 January. We had only one week before this important Bill, with substantial implications for many groups in the economy and society, went into Committee. The Committee had to finish its consideration of the Bill by 8 February.
The Minister was kind enough to say that the Opposition's role in Committee had on the whole been constructive and helpful. Of course, we set out to be

constructive. However, we had to hurry through some parts of the Bill in Committee and there were casualties, notably new clause 5. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is not in the Chamber, as he tabled new clause 5 for debate in Committee. As we began to run tight on time on the last agreed Committee sitting, the hon. Gentleman received an undertaking that his new clause would be brought back on Report. I was privy to the discussions that would make that possible, and the intention on both sides of the Committee was that the hon. Gentleman should have the opportunity to bring back his important new clause.
The new clause proposed establishing a new regulatory authority, recommended by the Royal College of Physicians. That recommendation came originally from the Select Committee on Health, no less, and enjoys cross-party support. So it is unfortunate that the unseemly haste with which we had to deal with the Bill in Committee has led to the removal of the opportunity for the hon. Member for Rother Valley to debate his new clause. I should certainly have liked the opportunity to speak on that important new clause, but that, unfortunately, is not to be today.

Mr. John Bercow: I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who is a truly outstanding technology anorak.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) agree that it would be particularly unfortunate if, as a consequence of the Government's truncation of debate on Report, four Government amendments in the later groups were not even reached?

Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend exactly describes the position. We have no flexibility in this matter; it is clear that the Commons will not be able to complete its deliberations before the Bill has to go to another place. No doubt my hon. Friend's close reading of Hansard led to his deliberate joke about my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). For the benefit of hon. Members who did not attend the Standing Committee, the reference to my hon. Friend as an anorak was in no way derogatory—quite the contrary. My hon. Friend brought an anorak bearing the Silk Cut logo to a meeting of the Standing Committee, in order to make the important point that the logos of well-known brands of tobacco are frequently displayed on items of clothing such as anoraks. As the subtlety of that joke might have been lost, I hope that my sharing it with the House has ensured that hon. Members do not miss its full nuances and that they realise that no derogatory intention attaches to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Mr. Nigel Evans: I declare an interest.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Government think that programming this measure is clever because, in their view, getting legislation through fast is what it is all about, they might end up with quick but not better legislation? Our role as Back Benchers is to scrutinise legislation, but the Government are preventing us from doing so.

Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do not agree with him that the Government


are being clever; it is arrogant to try to race a piece of legislation through the House just because they have a large majority. The Government are simply having their own way.
It is important to point out that the mechanics of opposition cannot be effective if the normal tools that the official Opposition need to do our job are not at our disposal. For example, the Committee stage of the Bill ended at 5 o'clock last Thursday; amendments for Report had to be tabled by 2.30 on Friday, but Hansard was not available in time for us to check exactly what the Government had agreed to reconsider during Report.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend may not have considered a further point that arises from the Government's appalling use of this new programming arrangement. In the past, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members know, those of us serving on Bill Standing Committees were normally able to get into the meat of the Bill on Report and debate it as soon as Question Time finished, or after discussion of a 10-minute Bill, such as the excellent one introduced today by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior). Under the current arrangements, we spend the whole of the first three-quarters of an hour discussing the evils of programming, and those of us who want to criticise a bad Bill that is unready for the statute book are unable to do so. We can raise only issues on programming. That is yet another negation of democracy by this appalling Government.

Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Connoisseurs of debates on programme motions will realise that it must be patently obvious to the Government that such debates are not a good use of parliamentary time. However, we should make it clear to occasional visitors to the House that, almost daily, the Opposition have to fight the same issue over and over again. We have to spend 45 minutes of a restricted period fighting for freedoms that are part of the democracy of this country—the ability properly to scrutinise legislation and to ensure that the best possible job is done—[Interruption.] We have been restricted in so doing. As I pointed out during the debate on the programme motion that followed Second Reading, I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House will review the effectiveness of the Government's decision to change parliamentary procedure in that way—it is seriously flawed.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend may not heard the observation made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) from a sedentary position—that we were not obliged to spend 45 minutes debating the timetable motion, but that we chose to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we did not do so, right hon. and hon. Labour Members would be the first to cite that as proof that we had no legitimate objections to the truncation of debate—when in fact we do, and they are numerous?

Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Lest he should be disturbed by sedentary interventions from Labour Members, I must warn him that we must be prepared for quite a few of them during the

debate. That was certainly my experience in the Standing Committee, and that feature of our debates in Committee is well recorded in Hansard.
It is also important that, whereas by convention, a decent period is allowed to elapse between the end of a Bill's consideration in Committee and its Report and Third Reading, Opposition Members have, in effect, had one weekend. That is, frankly, next to useless in terms of contacting the business community, which will be seriously affected by the Bill. Weekends are, to all intents and purposes, dead time for business, and with so little time to talk to those who will be directly affected, it has not been easy for the Opposition to prepare themselves for the debates on Report.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Did my hon. Friend share my experience—that members of the Standing Committee regularly received representations from organisations outside the House a day or two after we had discussed the relevant matters, so that those organisations have not had the chance to get their points of view across and we have not had the opportunity to consider them?

Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes a practical point, not unrelated to the disruption to some of the distribution services caused by the disintegration of our transport system—so much for the Government's integrated transport strategy. An impact of the disintegration of their transport strategy is that we can no longer rely on the post arriving on time. I certainly found myself similarly badly affected by the late arrival of important documents that would have supported our views at different stages of the Bill's progress.
In practical terms, when we arrived back from our constituencies yesterday, no fewer than 11 starred amendments had been tabled under the signature of the Secretary of State for Health. If any further proof were required of the disadvantages of rushing the Bill, that is clear evidence that the Government are rushing their own business. Many of those starred amendments address genuine issues of importance raised in Committee, so they were of great significance to us in preparing our response on Report; but virtually no time was left for us properly to consider their importance.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The fact that those amendments are starred will mean that interested external groups will not be able to comment on them, so any anxiety that they express will have to be addressed in the other place. That is profoundly unsatisfactory.

Mrs. Spelman: My right hon. and learned Friend should be aware of the danger of assuming that there might be time in another place to scrutinise the Bill properly. I understand that, of the two health Bills that were considered simultaneously in Committee, the Health and Social Care Bill, which will be considered in the Chamber tomorrow, will take precedence in another place, thus placing this Bill in a risky position if the Government go to the country early, which we understand is becoming increasingly possible.
Without in any way wishing to criticise the good offices of the House and the work of the Clerks, I wanted to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the selection


of amendments was not known until after the vote at 7 o'clock yesterday evening. That certainly makes the work of the Opposition extremely difficult. By that time, all the businesses that might have wished to communicate with us about the choice of matters to be discussed today had all gone home, as regular business hours were over.
I should like to stress that in the rush, not surprisingly, some typographical mistakes have been made. I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that amendment No. 13 should refer to clause 2(4), but it has unfortunately slipped through with a typographical error. That is what happens when we have to rush through legislation in this way.
There has been little chance properly to consult the people and organisations who will be affected. I was in the Library at 7.30 this morning because that was the only way I could catch up on the work and with the business community, which keeps different hours from the House's. That is not a good way to operate. It makes a mockery of the empty words about modernising the workings of the House and of the Government's attempts to introduce a family-friendly policy and transparent government.
The brutal truth is that the Government, who have a huge majority, want their Bill now, for their convenience, because of the imminent general election. They want to be able to tick the box of an election pledge and say that it was done, irrespective of whether the Bill is correct, has the right tools to be effective or deals justly with the people affected. They have not considered whether Labour Members might have something to say on the matter, perhaps to improve or enhance the Bill's effectiveness. They are simply impatient and want their ill-prepared and ill-thought-out Bill now—but unfortunately, it will not be properly scrutinised by the Chamber.
A report that was mentioned for the first time on "Newsnight" last night highlights the fact that adult smoking is rising for the first time in 30 years, according to Department of Health figures. The BBC News Online service, which also carried the story, says that that increase is thought to be a result of the high number of teenagers who took up smoking in the early 1990s. In light of that fact, it is important that we undertake proper scrutiny. We were at pains to point out on Second Reading that we strongly suspect that one of the main factors fuelling the increase in smoking—and we share the Government's interest in trying to reduce it—is the flood of illegally imported tobacco to this country. The Bill will do nothing about that. We seriously doubt its effectiveness unless the illegally imported tobacco floodgates are closed.
Another disturbing report is on students who are paid £25 an hour to smoke a brand of cigarettes in a pub, cafe or cinema. That is not advertising in the strictest sense—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's comments have nothing to do with the programme motion.

Mrs. Spelman: I am happy to return to the programme motion; I was merely explaining that the debate's curtailment and the terms of reference that the Government have chosen to constrain this important subject mean that the Bill will miss the mark and we will not have time to get down to the real issues. The Government will get their way and imperfect legislation will be passed. We have been deprived of the tools and time to do a far better job.

Sir Peter Emery: The motion is not a programming motion; it is a guillotine. The programme motions for Committees can properly be described as such, but this motion has nothing to do with Committees. It provides a guillotine to deal with Report and Third Reading, and a guillotine motion is usually moved by the Leader of the House. It is not left—I do not mean to be unkind—to a junior Minister. It is wrong that she should face such a problem.
I am in favour of the Bill. I am also in favour of the modernisation of procedure, but the Government are making a mockery of the Modernisation Committee's intentions. They have also tabled a motion that means that debate can continue until any hour—perhaps 2, 3 or 4 in the morning—on a matter that is not of such importance. There is thus no reason why they should have limited the time that might be needed to deal with the host of amendments that have been tabled.
How will the Under-Secretary ensure that the Government amendments are carried? Most guillotine motions state that Government amendments will be taken at the end of the timed proceedings, but I see nothing in this motion that will allow that to happen. Presumably if the proceedings carry on until the time limit, the Government amendments will fall. Is that the case? If so, surely it is wrong. Not only are we right to say that the Bill will not be properly debated, but there will not be enough time for Government amendments to be debated and decided on. That makes a mockery of the procedure for Report stage and Third Reading.
Why are the Government doing this? I have the answer: it is intended to allow Labour Back Benchers to leave at 10 o'clock. That does not permit the proper scrutiny of legislation, and those of us who have been in this place for some time condemn absolutely the way in which the Government are trying to cut short proper debate on amendments on Report. I hope that we can ensure that it does not happen again. When those who are in favour of a Bill have to get up and complain that the Government's arrangements for debating that Bill are nonsense, there is something very wrong with the procedure in the House.
I am very sorry that the Under-Secretary has to sit there and take this criticism, which ought to be directed at the Chief Whip or the Leader of the House. It was they who decided on this procedure, not the poor Under-Secretary, so I hope that she will forgive me. None the less, she is the face of the Government on the Front Bench today and she must take this criticism.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend realises that another precedent is being set today, but this is a Department of Trade and Industry Bill, not a Department of Health Bill, and it does not deal with issues on which the Under-Secretary is an expert. She has been hung out to dry by the Government, which is a shame for her future career.

Sir Peter Emery: I am very sorry for that. The hon. Lady is a very pretty thing to hang out to dry, and I do not mind being sexist in saying so. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. She and the duty Whip should acknowledge that the Government's attempts at modernisation—I am a member of the Modernisation Committee who has tried to assist in that process—


are backfiring because of their inefficiency and maladministration, and we should condemn that absolutely.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am afraid that this is not the first time that I have had to speak on a programme motion, nor will it be the last. I have spoken on six or seven such motions since the beginning of the Session, and my purpose is to oppose them whenever I have the opportunity. I do not conceal from you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that some of what I shall say I have said before. The problem is that if we do not repeat our objections, right hon. and hon. Members may lose sight of the evil associated with these motions.
Let us be clear: this is a wholly arbitrary motion. The Report stage is to conclude at 8.15 and Third Reading is to conclude at 9 o'clock. There has been no discussion about that between Members who represent different parties; it is an arbitrary decision by the Government. They are determining the amount of time that is to be spent on this motion. That in itself is sufficient condemnation.
Let me make a point, which I have probably made four or five times before, about respect for legislation. A political society is based on a somewhat fragile compromise, one element of which is the belief on the part of the electorate that their elected representatives have properly scrutinised a Bill—or, to put it differently, have had the opportunity properly to scrutinise a Bill. Once a process is established that prevents that from happening, the implicit bargain that supports the legitimacy of what we do is destroyed. With these programme motions, we are undermining respect for democracy, because we are disenabling ourselves from scrutinising Bills properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) made the point, rightly, that several of the amendments have been brought late to the House's attention. That has certain consequences, the first of which is that those outside the House who have an interest in the Bill do not have an opportunity to express their views to right hon. and hon. Members or to the Government. That is had enough in itself, but it means that if those views are heard favourably by the Government or anyone else, the resulting amendments will have to be made in the other place. However, if amendments are made in the other place and we want to change them—as we, the elected Chamber, are entitled to do—we may well not have the opportunity to do so because the amendments from the other place will come to this Chamber on another timetable motion and, lo and behold, we shall find ourselves deprived of an opportunity to consider them. That is to make a mockery of the processes of a democracy.

Sir Peter Emery: The Government made it clear when introducing these procedures that they would ensure that all amendments and all parts of a Bill could be debated. I do not know whether that was done in Committee, but when a host of new amendments is introduced on Report

and proper time is not given, the Government are falling down on the undertaking that they gave when they introduced the system.

Mr. Hogg: I am bound to say that the fact that the Government are falling down on their undertakings causes me no surprise. When they start to adhere to undertakings, I shall be surprised. My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He is right to say that new amendments will not be properly debated. If he followed my argument, as I know he did, about amendments being made in the other place and coming back to the House on a timetable, he will realise that they may never be debated at all by the House. By any standard, that is a disgrace.
From time to time, Ministers tell the House that their new clauses and amendments are but a reflection of discussions in Committee. They often say that and I have heard it many times. However, that is to miss the point, which is that Report stage is the first and only occasion on which the Chamber as a whole has an opportunity to scrutinise the detail of any part of a Bill. If the Report stage is truncated, it prevents those right hon. and hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee from making a constructive contribution to the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. and learned Friend address his remarks to the Government amendment that would increase the penalties under the Bill from a maximum of three months' imprisonment to a maximum of two years' imprisonment? That amendment was tabled—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to debate the Bill, but we are debating a programme motion.

Mr. Hogg: I shall not, of course, address the merits of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), but it is relevant to the programme motion to state that a great extension in the penal powers contained in the Bill is likely to be passed by the House without discussion, and that cannot be right.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: So that everyone outside the House understands what is happening, I put the same question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as I did the other week. Has he ever voted in favour of a guillotine? The answer is yes or no. As a Minister, has he ever had to preside over a guillotine from within his Department—again, yes or no?

Mr. Hogg: The answer is that I have voted for guillotines. I was a Minister for 13 years, so I know all about the conduct of Bills. Of course I have voted for guillotines.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Conservative Government were dealing with the consideration of Bills in Committee, our practice was not to impose a timetable motion until at least 100 hours had passed. We never programmed in advance. I do not remember as a Minister, although I may have done so, seeking to programme consideration on Report when there was no evidence that Members were seeking artificially to extend debate.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. and learned Friend has an admirable memory. Does he recall the occasion upon


which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) made precisely the same point? He told the House that, if as a Minister he had approached the Patronage Secretary to seek agreement on a speedy conclusion of business before 100 hours of consideration had taken place in Committee, he would have been sent away with a flea in his ear.

Mr. Hogg: If I had been the Minister responsible for the Bill in question, I would not have done that. I had too high a respect for the proprieties of Parliament. I remember consideration of the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, which went right through the night. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) may remember the occasion. There were so many Divisions that Members were asked, when Divisions were called, to rise in their places. I believe that there were 57 Divisions. We never tried to guillotine that debate or to subject it to artificial constraint. We put up with the consequences.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is another question that demands a similar answer—yes or no. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever vote for a motion on a guillotine following fewer than 100 hours of debate on a Bill?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot give a categorical answer. I was a Minister for 13 years, and I do not want to deceive the House. However, I can say with certainty that it was the Conservative Government's practice to allow consideration of 100 hours or more in Committee. I am not excluding the possibility that there might occasionally have been slightly fewer hours than that. However, in broad terms, 100 hours was a fair benchmark.
Programme motions are now being tabled in advance when there is no evidence that the debate will be artificially extended.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many people will wonder when the Government say, "We do not have the time"? We are about to go into yet another five-day break, a so-called half term, when we would be prepared to scrutinise legislation. The half term follows one of the lengthiest summer recesses that we have ever had. We have ample time to scrutinise legislation. There is nothing sacrosanct about the 10 pm cut-off. Many of us are prepared to go beyond 10 pm, if necessary, to improve legislation.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with that. My hon. Friend makes some important points. I am not in favour of legislating late into the night, but in the context of this place, I think that it is tolerable and proper to legislate between 10 pm and midnight. Thereafter, it is undesirable.
A problem that has arisen is that the volume of legislation that the Government are seeking to put through Parliament cramps the scrutiny of Bills. It is not a sign of parliamentary virility to pass Bills; usually, the fewer Bills the better. Parliamentarians would do well not to remove the checks and balances within the constitution that reduce the ability of government to legislate. We should stand by the checks and balances, and not dismantle them.
I wish to make one more substantive point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Keep it going.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall give way. Does he?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hogg: Very well, I shall continue.
A Bill's Report stage is an important occasion on which Members can come to the House and, in the context of a group of amendments, say that a certain concern is troubling them. They can articulate their constituents' anxieties, and say that they have discovered problems of which the House should be aware. The effect of a guillotine—which is what the motion is—prevents Members from coming to the House for that purpose. Indeed, one explanation for the empty Government Benches is that the Government Whips have made it plain to Government Members that contributions will not be welcome. That is a denial of democracy.

Mr. David Winnick: We can debate the pros and cons of programme motions for a long time to come. I suspect that when the Tories have a majority in the House of Commons, whenever that may be, there will not be much change from what is happening now. However, we shall see in due course.
Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not put his finger on the issue when he said that he did not like too much legislation? I suspect that the reason why he is protesting now has less to do with the programme motion—I can understand opposition to that—than with the fact that the content of what we are to debate does not meet with his approval. By contrast, Government Members want to get such measures through as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hogg: I shall make two points in reply. First, when we get back into power—which we shall—my hon. Friends will find that if such programme motions are introduced, I shall speak against them as often and vigorously as I do now. Secondly, I am not against the Bill. I am flattered that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is seeking to listen to me. Broadly speaking, I am in favour of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friends wish to speak in this debate, so I shall sit down. However, I am strongly against the motion.

Mr. John Bercow: This is a pitiful and damnable motion and I am mightily relieved that Her Majesty's official Opposition intend to oppose it. I do not mind vouchsafing that, as a shadow Home Office Minister, I am not obliged to vote for this ghastly measure. Indeed, it is unfortunate that I do not have the opportunity or entitlement, apparently, as a member of the Conservative Front Bench, to vote against it.
However, I was heartened by what my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said on the subject. I am bound to reiterate the eloquent point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford


and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) a few moments ago: the Government have a regrettable tendency to behave as though detailed consideration in Committee suffices, and to believe that, as a consequence of that consideration by fewer than 25 Members, there is no need to detain the House long on Report and Third Reading.
That is a novel and, if I may so, obnoxious constitutional doctrine, which is certainly not acceptable to me. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who either have strong views about the principle of the Bill that they wish to develop on Third Reading, or want to table or speak to amendments and new clauses on particular details, should have every opportunity to do so.

Mr. David Taylor: rose—

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is becoming itchy, so I shall give way.

Mr. Taylor: In his earlier comments, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that he feels unable to vote against the programme motion. Surely such a well known pillar of integrity as himself is not selling his independence for the mess of pottage that is office in the next Conservative Government, which will be elected in about 2035?

Mr. Bercow: That is a nice try but, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman misheard and got it wrong, which is not uncommon in the House. Let me make it clear beyond peradventure that I certainly intend to vote against this ghastly, risible, damnable programme motion. I was referring to the Bill itself a few moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Bercow: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as that is invariably a fruitless expenditure of time. He is right only very occasionally, and almost always by accident.
I have two final points to make as I approach my conclusion. First, some of us, at least on the Opposition Benches, strongly subscribe to the doctrine of the American commentator, Walter Lipman, that in a free society, the state does not administer the affairs of men—and women, he ought to have said—it administers justice among men, and women, who conduct their own affairs. The Bill flies in the face of that doctrine. It is precisely because it is a nannying, molly-coddling, interfering, bureaucratic, bossy measure that we should have adequate time fully to debate it.
Secondly, to be obliged to debate 50 new clauses and amendments with an average allocation of four minutes for each is unacceptable. It is characteristic of the arrogance, disdain and contempt with which the Government treat the House. We should rightly vote against the motion.
(It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].)

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 172.

Division No. 117]
[4.35 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Denham, Rt Hon John


Ainger, Nick
Dobbin, Jim


Allen, Graham

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Donohoe, Brian H



Doran, Frank


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dowd, Jim


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Drew, David


Ashton, Joe
Drown, Ms Julia


Atkins, Charlotte
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Austin, John
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bailey, Adrian
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Banks, Tony
Edwards, Huw


Barnes, Harry
Efford, Clive


Barron, Kevin
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Battle, John
Ennis, Jeff


Bayley, Hugh
Etherington, Bill


Begg, Miss Anne
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Flint, Caroline


Bennett, Andrew F
Flynn, Paul


Benton, Joe
Follett, Barbara


Berry, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Best, Harold
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Betts, Clive
Gapes, Mike


Blackman, Liz
Gerrard, Neil


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Goggins, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradshaw, Ben
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Browne, Desmond
Grocott, Bruce


Burgon, Colin
Grogan, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gunnell, John


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Healey, John


Caplin, Ivor
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Caton, Martin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cawsey, Ian
Hendrick, Mark


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Chaytor, David
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hill, Keith


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret



Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hood, Jimmy


Coaker, Vernon
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coffey, Ms Ann

Howells, Dr Kim


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Lindsay


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Connarty, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cooper, Yvette
Hurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Crausby, David
Jamieson, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jenkins, Brian


Cummings, John

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)



Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa



Joyce, Eric






Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Purchase, Ken


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Lammy, David



Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Laxton, Bob
Rogers, Allan


Lepper, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rowlands, Ted


Linton, Martin
Ruane, Chris


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruddock, Joan


Lock, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Love, Andrew
Ryan, Ms Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Salter, Martin


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sarwar, Monammad


Macdonald, Calum
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonnell, John
Sedgemore, Brian



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McFall, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McIsaac, Shona
Singh, Marsha


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McWilliam, John



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Southworth, Ms Helen


Maxton, John
Spellar, John


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moffatt, Laura
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moran, Ms Margaret
stuart, Ms Gisela


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)




Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dennnis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


O'Brien Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Hara, Eddie
Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)


Olner, Bill
Tynan, Bill


O'Neil1, Martin
Walley, Ms Joan



Ward, Ms Claire


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wareing, Robert N


Palmer, Dr Nick
Watts, David


Pearson, Ian
White, Brian


Pendry, Rt Hon Tom
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pound, Stephen
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Winnick, David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wood, Mike





Woodward, Shaun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Woolas, Phil



Wray, James
Mr. David Clelland and


Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Allan, Richard
Hammond, Philip


Amess, David
Hancock, Mike


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Harris, Dr Evan


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Harvey, Nick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hawkins, Nick


Baker, Norman
Hayes, John


Baldry, Tony
Heald, Oliver


Beggs, Roy
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bercow, John
Horam, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Body, Sir Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Boswell, Tim

Hunter, Andrew


Bottornley, Peter (Worthing W)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brady, Graham
Jenkin, Bernard


Brake, Tom
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brand, Dr Peter



Breed, Colin
Keetch, Paul


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Burnett, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Burns, Simon
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Burstow, Paul
Lansley, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Leigh, Edward


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Cash, William
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Livsey, Richard



Llwyd, Elfyn


Chidgey, David
Loughton, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Luff, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Collins, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cotter, Brian
Madel, Sir David


Cran, James
Maples, John


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Mates, Michael



Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Moore, Michael


Day, Stephen
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Duncan, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Ernery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Norman, Archie


Evans, Nigel
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Faber, David
Öpik, Lembit


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Feam, Ronnie
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paisley, Rev Ian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Redwood, Rt Hon John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Rendel, David


Gibb, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gidley, Sandra
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Gill, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Greenway, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Grieve, Dominic
Ruffley, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hague, Rt Hon William
St Aubyn, Nick






Sanders, Adrian
Trend, Michael


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tyler, Paul


Shepherd, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Walter, Robert


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Waterson, Nigel


Soames, Nicholas
Webb, Steve


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Stunell, Andrew
Willetts, David


Swayne, Desmond
Willis, Phil



Wilshire, David


Syms, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Mr. James Gray and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. John Randall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 22nd January:

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at quarter past Eight o'clock.

3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.

4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords

5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or
(b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,
and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 4

PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION OF USE OF SYMBOL, NAME OR EMBLEM

'The Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions prohibiting or restricting the use of a symbol, name or emblem used to promote a tobacco product, to promote a non-tobacco product or service except where the business producing the non-tobacco product or service is totally unconnected financially with the business producing the tobacco product and where the primary purpose of which is not to promote a tobacco product.'.—[Mrs. Spelman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 51, in clause 11, page 5, leave out lines 24 to 28.
Government amendment No. 46.

Mrs. Spelman: We now have a rather limited opportunity for hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee to debate the Bill. It was quite a small Committee—we discussed earlier how many people had had a chance to have an input—so this is the big opportunity for other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
This is an important new clause, and I am glad that it has survived the culling of several of the important new clauses that we attempted to introduce. Indeed, it was the only one to survive. We are pleased that it has been selected, because it covers an important point.
Under the Bill, the Government are choosing that our nation will go it alone with a ban on tobacco advertising in Europe. We shall be going out on a limb by introducing such a ban. Companies that have hitherto been able to produce goods other than tobacco products—such as clothes, shoes, umbrellas, leather goods, perfumes and other cosmetics—bearing a symbol, emblem or logo similar to one connected with a tobacco product, will find that that is now illegal. That represents an important change in commercial practice, and it is right that we should take the time to debate its impact and workability, and to ask whether the drafting of the Bill is fair to those companies.
If I could characterise the Bill generally, I would say that it meant rough justice for the companies that will have to work with it. As it stands, it is an example of the rough justice dimension of the plan to ban tobacco advertising. The Bill will catch companies with household names, such as Alfred Dunhill, which has diversified substantially into a range of non-tobacco products, with which I am sure hon. Members are familiar. It will also catch companies such as Davidoff, which produces a range of products including cosmetics, luggage, eye-wear, coffee, comestibles and cigars. It began as a tobacconist, but has diversified into those other areas.
More worryingly, the Bill will catch companies such as Worldwide Brands International, which has diversified into a range of products that includes clothing, shoes and luggage, but not tobacco accessories. There is nothing in their palette of products that is a tobacco product, by any definition. Such a company, which is completely independent of the tobacco industry, will be caught by the Bill because its products bear an emblem that arguably resembles the logo or emblem borne by a tobacco product. I make no excuse for giving this example again, as I feel that the company is one of those to which rough justice will be meted out.
When the company started, it used the camel logo, with which I am sure Members are familiar, along with the yellow writing associated with the Camel brand of cigarettes. Even at that stage, nothing in the company's range—which included luggage, clothes, shoes and other fashion items—could possibly be described as a tobacco product. However, the company—which is based in both Germany and the United Kingdom—foresaw difficulties with the proposed European directive.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: What would happen if such an organisation, based in France or Germany, advertised in one of the international newspapers that are now printed in different centres? If it advertised in a newspaper circulating in both Paris and London, what might be the impact on the newspaper circulating in London?

Mrs. Spelman: We shall discuss in detail the predicament of companies operating in more than one market when we reach the next group of amendments.
As I said at the outset, a general problem with the Bill is that the United Kingdom is going out on a limb, and as a result a large number of diverse companies will be placed at a competitive disadvantage. We tried to make the Government aware of that in Committee. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, companies might advertise in more than one market. We tabled an amendment that would remove the competitive disadvantage and make companies free to compete in a global market, and my hon. Friend will note from what the Government say on the next group of amendments that they have conceded in that regard.
I want to concentrate on the brand-sharing problem, however, because I do not think that we have been given a satisfactory answer. I have given the example of Worldwide Brands International, but there are others. When the company learned of the proposed directive banning tobacco advertising, its reaction was similar to that of the Government, who have chosen to go it alone: it made an important investment. It made a conscious decision to change its logo—to change the name from Camel to Camel Active, and to replace the familiar yellow writing that we associate with the brand of cigarettes with a black and white script in a completely different style. It is difficult to illustrate this without useful equipment such as overhead projectors, to which I fear the "mother of all Parliaments" cannot stretch, even in the 21st century.
A great deal of subjectivity is attached to the whole question of whether the company's activities would now be banned. The Department has given it to understand that they would, and that its investment in the change of logo will have been in vain.

John Robertson: Why would the company continue to use the name Camel? Is it because it just happened to be there at the time, or was there some other motive?

Mrs. Spelman: I cannot answer that question, because I do not sit on the board of the company that made the decision, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is becoming very difficult to find a name that is unique, especially with the advent of the dotcom company revolution. That will make it even more difficult for the provision to work in practice.
The company has appealed to the Government for some guidance, or some amendments to the Bill. In fact—so that companies whose products have nothing whatsoever to do with tobacco, and whose primary purpose is not to promote tobacco, could be more justly treated—the company was encouraged by the Department itself to provide its own amendments. It has made the necessary investment to change its logo from one that much more closely resembles tobacco product logos—but it is still caught by the Bill's provisions.

5 pm

Mr. John Bercow: I am listening intently to the development of my hon. Friend's argument. She will be aware that, on regulations and statutory instruments, I am a procedural anorak. Can she therefore tell me whether the regulations that would flow from new clause 4 would be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure?

Mrs. Spelman: I am sorry to inform my hon. Friend that, although the principal statutory instruments that will flow from the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure, interestingly, an exception, and special arrangements, have been made for the sponsorship agreements—for Formula 1. Perhaps that will encourage him to stay in the Chamber until we debate that matter, if there is sufficient time to do so. The group of amendments on sponsorship is rather far down the list of amendments selected for debate.

Mr. Bercow: I know that my hon. Friend will agree that we would not want to be remiss by failing to ensure that members of the public who may be listening to the debate are aware of the meaning of the negative and the affirmative procedure. Will she therefore confirm that the Government's intention in using that procedure seems to be to avoid debate on the Floor of the House, for which the affirmative procedure provides? Is that not to enable them to save their own face?

Mrs. Spelman: There is a great deal of face saving in the Bill, which kicks decisions on many difficult issues into the long grass. Those issues will be subject to regulations that we have not seen, and will not be able to see while debating those issues. Even now, on Report, we cannot properly anticipate many of the difficulties and controversies surrounding the issues that will be dealt


with by regulation. That is a fundamental weakness in the way in which the Bill is constructed. The Bill is effectively an empty box, and we are being asked to sign up as supporters of its contents without knowing what they are.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to mislead the House. Does she remember that the Minister told us that the Government would not introduce regulations under various parts of the Bill that provide for regulation? Therefore, in some cases people will have to guess what they might be doing wrong—for which they might subsequently be caught by regulation if a future Government decided to introduce such regulation.

Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend, with whom I spent many hours in Committee. Perhaps I could give hon. Members a flavour of the way in which the regulations will work. Although the power to make regulations has, in some cases, been provided in the Bill, a warning has been given that if everyone behaves and complies with the spirit of the Bill, it will not be necessary to make those regulations. The provision will hang over those who have to operate under the Bill as an incentive to get it right first time. If they do not, they risk a rap on the knuckles, or perhaps being taken to court, so that the meaning of the regulations can be clarified. That is a very strange way of regulating businesses that, until now, have been able to advertise legally. They will suddenly discover that some of the things that they have been doing, quite legally, have become illegal. The threat of regulation will hang over such companies if they get it wrong. The Bill places business in a very difficult position.
I want to return to questions about brand sharing that were not answered adequately in Committee, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to answer a very important question. The UK has decided to introduce a ban on tobacco advertising ahead of other European Union member states. Legal professionals advised the Commission and other interested parties when the intention at a European level was to proceed to a directive regarding the ban on tobacco advertising. Does the Minister agree that their comments might have some relevance today? The conclusions reached about brand sharing at the time are relevant to what the UK is about to do unilaterally.
The Advocate-General's opinion is important in this respect. The Advocate-General held that the restrictions then proposed on
brand diversification advertising violated the right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights".
Does the Minister think that the Bill as drafted is in contravention of the same article? We did not get an answer to that in Committee, yet it would be relevant to our debate this evening. I, for one, would like to know the answer.
The Advocate-General also held that
the Community legislator had not presented any evidence to suggest a link between brand diversification advertising, and overall tobacco consumption and that there were therefore no reasonable grounds to justify the restrictions on freedom of speech provided for in the Directive".

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has made an important and salutary point, but is she referring to the Advocate-General in the European Court, or to the Advocate-General for Scotland, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark)?

Mrs. Spelman: I am referring to the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I have been listening closely, but will the hon. Lady confirm that she is saying that if the makers of Silk Cut, a brand-named cigarette in the United Kingdom, decided to sell trousers, they could erect, at every football ground in the country, huge signs with the words "Silk Cut" on them? Is not the presumption in the defence of the new clause being offered by the hon. Lady, that the words would not be identified with cigarettes because they were being used in relation to trousers? Does that not appear to the hon. Lady somewhat nonsensical? Would not anyone seeing a sign that says "Silk Cut" think of cigarettes rather than trousers?

Mrs. Spelman: With respect, if he reads the new clause, the hon. Gentleman will see that it covers non-tobacco products or services from companies that are
totally unconnected financially with the business producing the tobacco product".
That is an important distinction.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I shall put the question another way. For the sake of argument, let us say that the manufacturer of Clarks shoes has no connection with any tobacco company, in this country or any other. Under the new clause, would it be acceptable for that company to call a range of shoes the "Silk Cut" range?

Mrs. Spelman: Common sense tells me that people wanting to buy shoes would be far more attracted by the good reputation of Clarks as a manufacturer than by any name chosen for a particular style of shoe.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Lady is avoiding the issue.

Mrs. Spelman: I am not; it is Labour Members who are avoiding an issue that is uncomfortable for them. The Government have chosen to go ahead with a ban on tobacco advertising, but at one time there was a Europe-wide attempt to introduce a directive with the same objective. The view of legal professionals at a European level was that banning advertising through brand sharing represented a contravention of article 10 of the European convention on human rights. It is legitimate for the Opposition to ask the Government, who intend to go down that road, whether they are satisfied with the procedure, although their opinion on that issue is different from that of the Advocate-General in Europe.
We did not get an answer from the Minister in Committee, and it is important to come back to the question today. Worldwide Brands International is, quite legitimately, asking me, as a representative of the Opposition, to put that question to the Government, as it cannot get an adequate reply. Of course the issue is important to such a company; it may wish to go to the European Court for a ruling on whether this piece of British legislation, which will affect it significantly, represents a contravention of article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
It stands to reason that if the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice was giving that advice not so long ago, the issue has already been considered at a high level. That is a good reason for bringing the question to the debate. Of course we do not want to pass legislation that is promptly found to contravene the European convention on human rights.
Things are particularly difficult for our legislature at present, as we have incorporated the convention into British law only very recently. This issue has to be worked through. I should have thought, however, that the Government would have anticipated the problem, which has already arisen at a European level, and that they would be ready to answer the question today. That is why it is important to return to the point, which was debated in Committee. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members understand our rationale in coming back to it, because we need to find the answer.
I find it difficult to understand why there is such strong opposition to legitimate diversification by companies that have nothing to do with the tobacco industry. Why do we want to make it so difficult for companies to diversify? Surely, with our shared public health agenda of trying to reduce the prevalence of smoking—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) gives me rather a contemptuous look, but I assure her that we share the Government's desire for a reduction in smoking. I do not know how many times I have to say that to get my point across. Perhaps this will be the last time this evening.
It is surely desirable for tobacco companies to produce other products if possible. I confidently predict that a consequence of depriving companies of the opportunity of brand sharing will be to weaken their competitiveness. I am confident that the legislation will lead to the ascendancy of foreign brands of tobacco coming into this country. That is already a feature of the flow of illegally imported tobacco.
I referred in the programme motion debate to students being offered £25 to promote tobacco brands on university campuses. The brand of tobacco in question was, in fact, foreign. That is the tip of the iceberg. We will see foreign brands coming into this country, and we will have shackled our own tobacco companies so that they have no way out.

Mr. Atkinson: On the impact of illegally imported tobacco and tobacco products, is it not true that although the most popular rolling tobacco in this country is Drum, it is not legally available anywhere in this country? If a

legitimate business—unconnected with tobacco—was also called Drum, what would happen to it? Such a business could be caught by the measure.

Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am not the ideal person to answer it—that is for the Government. However, as the Minister is engaged in another conversation at present, she will be unable to answer my hon. Friend's question, unless someone can give her a note of it.
My hon. Friend's point is important. There will be many more such examples. Surely we should encourage tobacco companies to diversify—possibly by making a new name for themselves in completely different markets.
Through amendment No. 46, the Government are trying to come some way towards meeting the Opposition on the matter. However, that amendment falls far short of the assurances that we seek from them. It reads like wishful thinking. It says that the Government "may" make an exception for companies as regards brand sharing. That will not be good enough for companies such as I have described. Those companies have already made a significant investment in changing their names and symbols, only to be told that that will not protect them.
The amendment does not offer sufficient assurances to such companies. They would prefer provisions such as our new clause, which would redress the balance by moving away from the rough justice that would be meted out under the Government's brand-sharing proposals and their rather weak effort to provide scope for exceptions, if they are so minded. There is no clear statement in the Bill of the circumstances in which the Government might be prepared to grant such exemptions. That will be subject, once again, to regulation. Yet again, a controversial aspect of the Bill is being kicked off into the long grass. The matter will be subject to regulations. When? We do not know—at some point in the future.
Meanwhile, the harsh reality is that a company such as Worldwide Brands International has to carry on its business. Will it be guilty of an offence? Will it have to go to court to prove that it has made an effort to alter its logo, and that the new logo is no longer similar to the original logo associated with tobacco products? Will such a company have to go to all that expense while the Government make up their mind whether to make an exception for it?
The amendment is far too vague. It offers insufficient reassurance to companies that have made a real effort to comply with the original European directive. They have followed to the letter the advice of the Advocate General; they believed that such advice might logically apply if a member state decided to go it alone down the road originally intended for the directive. Instead, however, those companies have been left confused. It is that confusion and lack of clarity that our new clause attempts to address. That is why I commend it to my hon. Friends.

The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I begin by responding to some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). She referred


to some of the broader issues that arise on brand sharing—a matter on which we held a detailed discussion in Standing Committee.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The detailed discussion consisted of exchanges between the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that lasted less than 15 minutes.

Yvette Cooper: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government offered more time for debate in Committee, and if the Opposition had wanted to, they could have taken up that offer. The point that he makes about the time that was available in Committee is, frankly, inappropriate.
If brands are distinct, they will not be covered by the regulations on brand sharing. We have made it clear that our intention is not to catch all products that share the same name, and we are certainly very sympathetic to the need to support business diversification. If the intention is not to promote a tobacco product, the firm involved should have no problem with distinct branding. We have declared our intention to consult in detail on the regulations, because this a complex subject and the companies involved will want time to make representations. That is important.
The wording of new clause 4 would create all kinds of problems. It would exclude from the scope of the regulations on brand sharing arrangements in which no financial link existed between the brand company and the tobacco company, and in which the primary purpose of the new branded goods was not to promote a tobacco product. A company could easily argue that its primary purpose was not to promote a tobacco product; it would argue that its primary purpose was to promote a product—trousers, boots, or whatever—but its secondary or alternative purpose might include promoting tobacco products. It would certainly be inappropriate if the Bill were to state that a company would be covered by the provisions on brand sharing only if its primary purpose was to promote tobacco products.
Another problem with new clause 4 is that the Opposition insist that the companies must be "totally unconnected financially", but it is not clear what that phrase means. For example, would a wholly owned subsidiary be included? Would it include arrangements in which no corporate links existed between companies but directors from, for example, BAT were shared or sat on the board of another company in a non-executive capacity? Would it include a publicly quoted company with a tobacco company as a major shareholder?
I ask all those questions because of the evidence that has emerged, especially in litigation in the United States, from tobacco companies about their attempts to use brand sharing as an alternative way to promote tobacco products and, where necessary, to try to create different legal and perhaps corporate separation between the companies, but where the aim is still to promote tobacco products. For example, a document from RJ Reynolds that emerged during the US litigation states:
In the context of a total advertising ban on direct and indirect advertising as of January 1993, communication continuity is undoubtedly 'The' issue to be solved during the plan period.

The only remaining tool is logo license activities provided they are marketed by a company financially and legally distinct from a tobacco company".
In another document, RJR states:
In order to fulfil its mission, logo licence will be operated as diversification business in line with the respective brand positioning statement. This will be achieved a) through a separate legal entity, b) with consumer relevant products/services/events, c) owning registrations of international trademarks in pertinent categories d) being profitable within an economically reasonable period and"—
this is critical—
e) attracting the cigarette brand's target group.
There is plenty of evidence to show that brand sharing has been used abroad and in this country to promote tobacco products. I am extremely concerned that new clause 4 and the consequential amendment—amendment No. 51—could introduce a major loophole in the ban on tobacco advertising and allow considerable advertising to continue through indirect means.
The hon. Member for Meriden referred to the European convention on human rights. We have made it clear that the Bill is compatible with the convention. The Advocate General did not consider the Bill or evidence on brand sharing when he pronounced on the European directive. He did not make a decision on a point of principle and concluded that there was sufficient evidence on direct advertising to justify the directive, which he did not think was in conflict with article 10. There is enough evidence, especially on children's familiarity with brand sharing products and the links between brands, for it to be clear that the Bill is also compatible with the convention.
Government amendment No. 46 will clarify the Bill so that firms that comply with, and trade their products under, brand sharing regulations do not get caught by any of the Bill's other provisions, such as those in clause 2. That is not the intention of the regulations. If a company's products—whatever they might be—are acceptable under the regulations, the amendment ensures that they will not unintentionally be affected by the provisions on advertising. It will make the arrangements easier for businesses.
We have set out our intention to consult on the regulations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that we want to do that as soon as possible and to begin the process during the Bill's passage through Parliament. We also want to consult our European partners because European issues, too, are relevant. We will also discuss the appropriate time scales for the introduction of the regulations.

Mr. Bruce: Has the hon. Lady sent draft regulations for consultation—and if not, why not?

Yvette Cooper: The draft regulations have not been published for consultation, but they will be produced at the earliest possible opportunity, as we have made clear several times.
There are plenty examples of business diversification. For example, Philip Morris owns Miller beer. Those are distinct brands and it is clear that there is no brand sharing. We are keen to promote brand sharing, but we also want to ban tobacco advertising and prevent companies from using brand sharing as a way round the ban.
The regulations will be subject to detailed consultation. We have made it clear that we do not intend to cause problems for brands that are distinct from tobacco brands. I urge the House to accept Government amendment No. 46 and reject new clause 4 and amendment No. 51.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I apologise if I cover ground that was dealt with by the Committee, but I was fortunate enough not to have to serve on it.
The Minister says, "Trust us. We will get this right and send out some regulations", and we have had to accept a debate on Report that is truncated and disgracefully short; but brand sharing is a key problem for the industry to face, and the regulations have not even been written. The House is having to decide crucial issues when we know nothing about the Government's proposals.

Mr. Bruce: Surely the point is that no one has been able to produce a sensible response to the problem of brand sharing. The Government have not provided draft regulations because that is an almost impossible task, but the House is being asked to agree the Bill tonight.

Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend makes my point for me. The problem is that a key piece of the Bill is missing, yet we are asked to nod it through tonight on the basis that the Government have said, "Trust us, we don't want to stop companies brand sharing."
The Bill is to be enforced by the weights and measures authorities. Are we to trust the same people who prosecuted a market trader in Sunderland for selling goods in pounds and ounces? Hon. Members have raised several problems related to brand sharing. I am concerned about the illegal rolling tobacco, Drum, which is available in this country. What would happen if a perfectly legal company in this country had the same name? Would the weights and measures people arrest its proprietors? A European brand of cigarettes, called Olympia or Olympic—I cannot remember which—is available in this country. What would happen if a business in this country shared that name? Those will be concerns for large companies, and we are making decisions without even knowing what the regulations will say.
Earlier, I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) a point about newspapers and other publications that are printed simultaneously in different countries. The International Herald Tribune is printed in a number of centres in Europe at the same time, and the Financial Times is printed simultaneously in Frankfurt and London. A newspaper's editorial office in Paris might insert an advertisement for a brand of Camel boot or the "Silk Cut" trousers to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred. Pages are sent from one country to another, and there may be no editorial interference in the printing process in this country. Presumably, then, international newspapers that sell copies in the United Kingdom will have to refuse all such advertisements. A French newspaper might have refuse advertisements from a French business.

Mr. Bercow: This is a thorny area. Would it not be helpful if the Under-Secretary were to indicate, if she has not already done so, that she intends to provide a minimum of three months for consultation on the

regulations? In the light of the likely burden that the regulations, be they desirable or undesirable, will impose on businesses, especially small businesses, does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a minimum of three months' notice of the requirement to implement the regulations?

Mr. Atkinson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I would welcome a reply from the Under-Secretary. A minimum of three months' notice would be extremely helpful.
I want to pursue the question of publications. It is very easy to buy foreign language magazines in this country. I think of French and German magazines that are printed abroad and shipped here, which will of course carry tobacco advertisements. I did not attend the Committee, but from a brief reading of the Bill I can see nothing that would protect those companies. A German company could be prosecuted in this country because it sold a magazine containing a cigarette advert in the UK.
Does that mean that special UK editions of those magazines would have to be printed, which would hardly be economic, or would they have to be withdrawn from sale in this country? That question demonstrates the idiocy of proceeding with the Bill without the consent of fellow members of the European Union, who are moving towards a ban on tobacco advertising. It would be helpful if the ban were imposed Europe wide, instead of the Government going it alone.
I hope that by the end of the debate this difficult issue will have been clarified. Even if the Minister for Public Health will not produce the regulations or give us any idea of their contents, perhaps she will address our concerns when she winds up.

Mr. Ian Bruce: In Committee, I was prevented from making the speech that I am about to make because the Opposition were trying to help the Government to get the Bill through Committee in the limited time available in a way that allowed the maximum discussion of items on which we had to make a decision. The issue that we are debating, brand sharing, is important because it might affect companies that have nothing to do with tobacco. We can all argue about whether we want to reduce tobacco consumption—although everyone on the Committee was in favour of that—but no one intends to damage companies that have never been involved in tobacco.
Throughout the Committee proceedings, I trailed the fact that I intended to speak about the brand that is in front of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: the portcullis. It appears on my cufflinks, and Members of Parliament are proud of the fact that it appears on our letterhead. You might not realise this, but in the House of Commons bars and the Gift Shop it is possible to buy House of Commons branded cigarettes, which carry the portcullis logo. Cigarettes are not the only product that the House of Commons sells: we sell water, teddy bears and whisky and we provide services through our Banqueting Department. The House of Commons is engaged in a commercial business, and I suppose that we should all declare an interest in that respect. We might all be prosecuted when the Bill is passed.
I meant to begin my speech by declaring an interest: my wife and I are beneficial owners of a few shares in Imperial Tobacco. We never bought the shares, but the


demerger of a company in which we had bought shares resulted in our becoming the owners of the Imperial Tobacco shares.
The example I give, however silly it might appear, illustrates the fact that people brand share. The Houses of Parliament or House of Commons brand is a brand share. Were I advising the House authorities, I should immediately tell them that they must stop selling cigarettes carrying the House of Commons brand; either that, or Members of Parliament should stop using the portcullis or even the name of this place to ensure that we do not break the law as it will be when the Bill is passed.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend raises an interesting question of parliamentary sovereignty. Would parliamentary sovereignty apply and thus enable us to ignore the legislation and continue to sell the cigarettes?

Mr. Bruce: When my hon. Friend and I became Members of Parliament, parliamentary sovereignty existed, but new Labour does not care about such things. The current Government continually undermine the rights and privileges of the House of Commons—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) wish to intervene? He is always chuntering—oh, he has risen to his feet, just to show that he is here. I give way to him.

Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers, tangentially, to the loss of parliamentary sovereignty in terms that suggest that most of that loss has occurred since 1997. However, I do not believe that Labour was in government when the Maastricht treaty was signed. Will he confirm that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) returned to the new clause that is the subject of our debate.

Mr. Bruce: I had not left that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, as you rightly say, I could not possibly respond to that intervention. I was foolish and over-generous to give way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire.
In tabling the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is attempting to help the Government not to fall into a gaping hole. One might say that it does not matter if House of Commons branded cigarettes cease to be. I should prefer that we did not have such cigarettes—indeed, under the previous Government, the Refreshment Department announced that it had decided not to have the cigarettes any more and that it would phase them out by selling whatever stocks it held. There must have been about 10 years of stock because packets are still being sold. It may be nice to have them, but why do we not set an example and say that we shall not share our brands with tobacco? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I am glad that I have some support for that.
I hope that the House will listen to what I have to say about brand sharing. We are all aware of Imperial Tobacco. The word "imperial" is a brand share with many other companies. For example, there is Imperial Chemical

Industries. There must be thousands of companies that have "imperial" in their names. Imperial mints is a generic term.

Mr. Peter Luff: There is the Imperial war museum.

Mr. Bruce: It shares a name with tobacco. Once we have seen the regulations, will we be able to attach "imperial" to any product, company or anything else, given that that is brand sharing? The Minister does not have an answer, but perhaps she will surprise us later.
What about Marlboro? The Marlboro cafe in my constituency serves some of the best fish and chips in the country. I do not know why it is called the Marlboro cafe, but it is. It is advertising the well known name of a tobacco product. Is the cafe to change its name? Is it to be prosecuted? I need to know.
There is Embassy, and hundreds if not thousands of companies use that name at the beginning of their—

Mr. Taylor: So what?

Mr. Bruce: If the hon. Gentleman owned Embassy Cars, which I think is a company in my constituency, he would be concerned. He would have to ensure that all his advertisements were changed. He would have to ensure that they referred to cars and not to the tobacco company. That sharing of a brand name has nothing to do with the ownership or the promotion of tobacco. That was never thought about. That is an example of what we must be worried about.
There are other examples. Dunhill is a brand of lighters as well as cigarettes. It might be said that brand sharing is taking place, but I think that Dunhill—

Mr. Luff: Watches and aftershave.

Mr. Bruce: I wish that I had asked my hon. Friend to write my speech in advance. If he had done so, I would not have to keep referring to him. I know that there are many products with the name Dunhill. They may originally have been attached to tobacco, or they may have been completely independent, in common with the examples that I have already given.
What about Lambert and Butler? Will it be necessary for people to change their name by deed poll if it is either Lambert or Butler, especially if someone wants to start a business? I suspect that there are a few Rothmans floating around. Superking is a nice brand name. An enormous number of products use "super" and "king" in their names. There is St. Bruno rolling tobacco. Are we not to have Bruno Brookes on the radio any more? Will the boxer no longer be able to fight?
There is Golden Virginia—[Interruption.] Members laugh, but I am giving examples of people who will have to ask, "Is this brand sharing?" The Government and the Minister have not given us an inkling of what the regulations will provide. What is the point? The Government are trying to ensure that, come the general election, they can say that they have done the business and introduced an Act. If they have not published the draft regulations by then, they certainly will have not done the business.
What will happen if the Bill succeeds in stopping advertising? The tobacco industry often wants to launch new products, sometimes ones that are less lethal than others currently on the market. We should necessarily encourage that, but what will a company do when it names its product? It will almost certainly use a generic name—a household word—associated with other products that already share the brand. Why should a British company be attacked by a tobacco company—with the tobacco company, in effect, stealing a generic name that it cannot patent or copyright—and be caught by the Bill when it has never had anything to do with the tobacco industry?

Brand sharing is about trying to link qualities that people associate with the word "king", "golden" or "Golden Virginia" with the quality of the product that a company is trying to sell. Its product may kill people more quickly, but it is trying to shift that perception towards something that we automatically think is good. The Minister said that that was brand sharing. She cannot therefore ask Parliament, sight unseen, to pass the Government amendment without accepting the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has tabled, or explaining how companies unrelated to tobacco activities will not be affected by the regulations.
Parliament has waited for the Government to introduce something that they said they were going to introduce four years ago. The European Union introduced regulations that were found to be illegal. I do not believe that the Government have done their homework and got this right. We should not accept the Bill without new clause 4.

Mr. Barron: I rise, not to speak too long on the matter, but to say that there is a bit of history behind it which Opposition Members seem to have forgotten. I know that they have been told before that brand sharing is one way in which tobacco companies have got around tobacco advertising Bills. On Second Reading, I mentioned what happened when the Italian Government introduced a ban on tobacco advertising. There were brand names on children's toys and all sorts of things were advertised on television, so it was clear what the ban was designed for.
In view of my criticism of the Conservative party over the years, I should not be surprised at the fact that not only was it addicted to tobacco companies for a long time, but it is still addicted to them. I should have thought that it would take up one of the cessation programmes that the Government have been making available for the past four years to try to get people off their unhealthy addictions.

Mr. Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Barron: In a few minutes; I just want to get on to some of the surrounding issues.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) seemed to think that the Government do not want tobacco companies to diversify. Of course, we do; that is exactly it. However, by presenting her publication at the Dispatch Box, the hon. Lady was trying to defend a company that came into being when tobacco advertising bans started to appear around the world. She must ask herself whether a brand like Camel, which has been advertised across the world, would allow somebody to come along, take its

copyright and use that word to sell another product. It is not believable that there was not, and is not, a connection between that publication, which sells clothing, and Camel's advertising and organisation.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) ought to ask whether the Marlboro cafe in his constituency, the Marlboro Classics shop in Covent Garden and Marlboro coffee are connected with Marlboro tobacco and Philip Morris. They are connected, and were brought into being to brand-stretch and brand share because of public health decisions that were taken to stop the promotion of tobacco products around the world. When the hon. Member for Meriden says from the Dispatch Box that the Government's decision today will mean that Britain is the first country to ban tobacco advertising, after previous attempts resulted in losing cases in the European Court and defeat by the tobacco companies, she is wrong. Many countries have banned tobacco advertising for many years.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to that fact that, when I tried to promote a Bill not dissimilar to this under the private Members' Bill procedure back in 1994, there was one company that stood out. One could honestly say that it was using a name that was now on a tobacco product, but which had not initially been associated with the promotion of tobacco. That firm was Alfred Dunhill. I do not believe that it is a front for a tobacco company to get round a ban on tobacco advertising.
I shall be interested to see what regulations are drawn up. They are necessary, whatever the Opposition may say. The reason for sports sponsorship in the UK is that the advertising of cigarettes on television was banned in 1965. That is why tobacco firms started to sponsor cricket and Formula 1. They do it throughout the world.
My hon. Friend the Minister quoted documents arising from the litigation of RJ Reynolds, an American tobacco company, in the United States. The documents show what such companies do when they brand share or brand-stretch: they promote tobacco products. That is what Marlboro Classics is about, and in my view, the same applies to the Camel company. I hope that the Government will come down hard on that. It makes no sense to ban tobacco advertising if the companies are allowed to spend their hundreds of millions in other ways to promote tobacco in this country or any other.

Yvette Cooper: I shall respond briefly to the points raised. We will be happy to have a considerable period of consultation on the regulations. We are sympathetic to appropriate transitional periods for the implementation of the regulations, as we have demonstrated with regard to other aspects of the Bill.
International publications are dealt with in clause 4(1)(c). Publications whose principal market is not the UK are excluded. The intention of the Bill and the brand-sharing regulations is to prevent the promotion of tobacco products. That will be the test. It is not our intention to prevent diversification, or to catch companies or products just because they bear the same name.
New clause 4 would introduce a substantial loophole. That is why we are opposing both it and amendment No. 51.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Lady cannot get away with saying that the regulations will protect firms that have


nothing to do with tobacco. Can she describe to the House how the regulations will be phrased?

Yvette Cooper: We will publish the regulations for full consultation. We have made clear in this debate and in Committee our intention with regard to brand sharing, and the clear intention of the Bill to prevent the promotion of tobacco products.

Mrs. Spelman: I hate to inform the House that we have got to exactly the point that we reached in Committee. We did not run out of time on the brand-sharing clause, but we could not usefully proceed in Committee. The Government said that they would undertake a huge consultation exercise, and we cannot get a clear idea of what will be in the regulations until that consultation has taken place. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
The consultation exercise should surely occur before the draft regulations are issued. We would be in a far better position to decide whether they would be excessively punitive if we knew what was in the regulations. The Minister said in Committee:
We certainly recognise the need for proper and thorough consultation. We are also keen to consult with the European Commission on its proposals. We recognise that this is a complex area and we are keen to have a thorough and effective consultation process"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 February 2001; c. 152.]
We cannot accept the vague commitment in the Government amendment, when the consultation exercise has still to take place. That is why we sought through our new clause to clarify the situation. It is a feature of the Bill that so much is being left to subsequent regulations, and this is a particularly bad example of that. Companies will be put in an impossible position.

Mr. Bruce: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that we totally reject the remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)? Under our Government, tobacco consumption was falling, whereas under this Government, it is going up. We are attempting to help this miserable Government to do something sensible, for a change.

Mrs. Spelman: I should have tried at the beginning, as we have tried so many times, to make it clear to the hon. Member for Rother Valley that it is not our purpose to take up the cause of tobacco companies, as he continually implies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said on Second Reading, we have no love for tobacco companies. I hope that, having been present in Committee, the hon. Member for Rother Valley will recognise how carefully we have striven to uphold the public health agenda throughout the debate. We have not departed from that.

Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Spelman: No. I am rather tired of accusations being made about a position that we do not defend.
I shall comment on some of the specific points made by the Minister. She said that the Bill was compatible with the European convention on human rights. It seems that companies such as Worldwide Brands International

will have no alternative but to slug it out in the courts. It will be one lawyer's opinion against another. If the Advocate-General was willing to put on record his view that the brand-sharing advertising restriction was not compatible with article 10 of the convention, it is perfectly legitimate for the company to pursue the matter in the courts, to see whose legal opinion will win the day. I am not qualified to give advice, but it seemed a rather sweeping statement to say that the Bill was indeed compatible.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I do not want to interrupt her train of thought. When the Minister replied in double-quick time and covered some of the points that I had raised about newspapers and publications, she did not deal with the point that some of the foreign publications are printed in the UK. According to the Bill, a publication is exempt if it is printed outside the UK and its principal market is not the UK, but what happens if it is printed in the UK, even if its principal market is not the United Kingdom? I was hoping that the Minister would answer that.

Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he will make all those important points again on the next group of amendments.
The Minister asked how I would define a company that was totally unconnected with a tobacco company. I am a health spokesman, not a DTI spokesman. The issues of company law and the Minister's questions to me demonstrate the extent to which the Bill is wide of being a health Bill. It deals with international competition and the way in which companies are structured.
Surely the Minister understands the spirit behind our new clause, which was intended to take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. Of course we do not want to create a massive loophole through which tobacco promotion is allowed to accelerate, or to fuel the prevalence of smoking. That is the spirit of our new clause. If the hon. Gentleman needs yet more proof—

Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Spelman: No, I am not prepared to give way. The hon. Gentleman simply will not believe our party's stance. He refuses to believe that we share the public health agenda and the aim of reducing smoking. I have grown weary of telling him that in different ways on different occasions. I am sure that the House does not want to hear it again.
We shall press our new clause because the Government amendment will not provide assurances to the companies that will have to work with the Bill. The promises of regulations in the future, which are to be preceded by a massive exercise in consultation, are a further reason why we consider it important to bring clarity to the debate on brand sharing and advertising, for the sake of all those who will have to work with the Bill. We have heard no clarification from the Minister today, and we find it difficult to accept that the Government amendment would be adequate.
Our new clause would be a great deal more successful in bringing clarity to the Bill concerning the exception that could be made for a brand-sharing arrangement by a company that has carried out its business legitimately up


to now and whose primary purpose is not to promote tobacco. That is why I commend our new clause to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to Division.

Mr. Duputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Would the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Lobby?

The House having divided: Ayes 122, Noes 345.

Division No. 118]
[6 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David



Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Key, Robert


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Baldry, Tony
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Blunt, Crispin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Body, Sir Richard
Lansley, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Letwin, Oliver


Brady, Graham
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Loughton, Tim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Luff, Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Burns, Simon
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cash, William
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David


Chope, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maples, John



Mates, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Collins, Tim
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Norman, Archie



O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Raice, James


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Prior, David


Flight, Howard
Randall, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fox, Dr Liam
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Garnier, Edward
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gibb, Nick
Ruffley, David


Gill, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Soames, Nicholas


Grieve, Dominic
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Steen, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Hammond, Philip
Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hayes, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Trend, Michael


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Walter, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jenkin, Bernard
Whittingdale, John





Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wilkinson, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Keith Simpson and Mr. James Gray


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainger, Nick
Cohen, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coleman, Iain


Allan, Richard
Colman, Tony


Allen, Graham

Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)



Cooper, Yvette


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbett, Robin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cotter, Brian


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Atkins, Charlotte
Cox, Tom


Austin, John
Cranston, Ross


Bailey, Adrian
Crausby, David


Banks, Tony
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Battle, John



Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Beggs, Roy



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davidson, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bermingham, Gerald



Berry, Roger
Denham, Rt Hon John



Betts, Clive
Dobbin, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Blizzard, Bob
Donohoe, Brian H


Body, Sir Richard
Doran, Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dowd, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Drew, David


Brake, Tom
Drown, Ms Julia


Brand, Dr Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Breed, Colin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Efford, Clive


Browne, Desmond
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ennis, Jeff


Buck, Ms Karen
Etherington, Bill


Burgon, Colin
Feam, Ronnie


Burnett, John
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Flint, Caroline


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek



Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Caplin, Ivor
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Caton, Martin
Gerrard, Neil


Cawsey, Ian
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gidley, Sandra


Chaytor, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chidgey, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)






Grocott, Bruce
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gunnell, John
McWilliam, John


Hain, Peter
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hancock, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harris, Dr Evan
Martlew, Eric


Harvey, Nick
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Hendrick, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hepburn, Stephen
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Heppell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hesford, Stephen
Moore, Michael


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hopkins, Kelvin



Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hoyle, Lindsay



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hurst, Alan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Illsley, Eric
O'Hara, Eddie


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Neill, Martin


Jenkins, Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pond, Chris


Joyce, Eric
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keetch, Paul
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Primarolo, Dawn


Kemp, Fraser
Prosser, Gwyn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kirkwood, Archy
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Lammy, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rendel, David


Leslie, Christopher
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Levitt, Tom



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Linton, Martin
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Livsey, Richard
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooney, Terry



Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruane, Chris


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Joan


McDonnell, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McFall, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salmond, Alex


McIsaac, Shona
Salter, Martin


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sanders, Adrian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sarwar, Mohammad


McNamara, Kevin
Savidge, Malcolm





Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sheerman, Barry
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Thompson, William


Shipley, Ms Debra
Tipping, Paddy


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Singh, Marsha
Touhig, Don


Skinner, Dennis
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Tynan, Bill


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Soley, Clive
Ward, Ms Claire


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Webb, Steve


Starkey, Gerry
White, Brian


Steinberg, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Winnick, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stunell, Andrew
Wood, Mike


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Woolas, Phil



Wray, James


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. David Clelland


Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

MEANING OF "TOBACCO ADVERTISEMENT" AND "TOBACCO PRODUCT"

Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after second "advertisement", insert "including product placement".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after "so", insert—
'but does not include an advertisement where the purpose is to reduce the prevalence of smoking, notwithstanding that it may depict a tobacco product.'.
Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
Amendment No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 23, at end insert
'or
(c) if it is contained in a tender for a contract to publish a magazine in an overseas market.'.
Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
'or
(f) if it is or is contained in an item of intrinsic value more than 30 years old.'.
Government amendment No. 42.
Amendment No. 32, in clause 8, page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
Government amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 47.

Mrs. Spelman: I commiserate with you on your sore throat, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an amazing role reversal, perhaps you would like to catch the eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who may be able to help you with what sounds like a nasty sore throat.
The group of amendments is so large that I am tempted to characterise it as the whole world and his wife with the kitchen sink thrown in. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me as I present our amendments, which are diverse and cover different subjects. Some raise new points: others deal with points that arose from consideration in Committee. They need to be examined on Report.
Amendment No. 2 would incorporate for the first time in the Bill the phrase "product placement". We discussed the definition of "advertisement" in Committee, but we were unsuccessful in obtaining a clear definition from the Government. That weakness will make it difficult for those who must work with the Bill to know what constitutes an advertisement. We successfully drew out from the Minister a few examples that would not be regarded as advertisements. It was helpful to know that tobacco packaging is not regarded as an advertisement. However, the matter was left unclear.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I know that my hon. Friend is trying to pass on to hon. Members the advice that we received from the Minister that a packet did not constitute an advertisement. However, that does not appear in the Bill.

Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is right that we are trying to convey to hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, and might not have had a chance to read Hansard closely, some of the problems to which we are reverting on Report. Some clarification that was given in Committee is not incorporated in the Bill, and that will make it difficult for people to work with the measure.
One important concept missing from the Bill is product placement, which is a widely used method of advertising. We share the Government's concern to reduce the prevalence of smoking and we believe that product placement is a potent form of advertising. It might be helpful if I tried to define product placement, in case hon. Members are unfamiliar with the concept. I would define it as deliberately placing a product in view for the purpose of promoting it. Perhaps hon. Members can think of television programmes or films in which a tobacco product has been clearly placed in view and left there for a considerable time so that the brand is etched on our memory. If one consults avid watchers of soap operas—not that I am one—they are even able to identify the brand of cigarette smoked by the stars in the cast. That is a potent example of product placement.
In Committee, we touched on the question of product placement and stressed to the Government that it was a potent form of advertising to the young in particular, many of whom are avid watchers of television soap operas. I always do my level best to dissuade my children from watching such programmes, for a variety of reasons to do with the values that they sometimes impart. It is a matter of concern that young people watch television programmes or films in which their role models—the stars

of the programmes or films—are party to product placement in which a tobacco product is placed in clear view.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is my hon. Friend confident that she, or whoever she envisages carrying out the task, could distinguish between what she categorises as product placement and the incidental or accidental portrayal of a product? Is she confident that she could draw that line of distinction?

Mrs. Spelman: That is very difficult to do precisely. I shall come in due course to the regulations governing broadcasting, some of which leave such decisions to the editor, saying that such placements may be made if they are editorially justified. I hope that my right hon. Friend would agree that an editor's judgment can become very subjective on those questions, and that it is difficult to say objectively what is editorially justified and what is not.
I want to draw to the House's attention a recent piece of research published in volume 357 of The Lancet, on 6 January 2001. The research undertook a survey of a 10-year sample of contemporary films, examining the increasing role and importance of product placement in them. It established that more than 85 per cent. of the films contained tobacco use. Tobacco brands appeared in 28 per cent. of the films, and brand appearances were as common in films suitable for adolescent audiences as they were in films for adult audiences. That is, 32 per cent. of films for adolescent audiences and 35 per cent. of films for adult audiences contained such appearances. If we are concerned to protect young people, we should be concerned about that.
Tobacco brands were also present in 20 per cent. of the films rated suitable for children. That gives me, as a parent, cause for disquiet. The research stated that brand placement in films had become a preferred method for companies to raise brand awareness and develop favourable associations with their products in an international audience. I fear that there will be an increasing amount of product placement when other conventional forms of advertising are banned by the Bill. Undoubtedly, a great deal of effort will be made in that direction by those wishing to promote tobacco.

Mr. David Taylor: The main thrust of the Opposition's attitude to tobacco advertising is that it serves only to encourage switching between brands. Is it not, however, the case that, in instances of product placement—of which the hon. Lady is rightly critical—a viewer is very rarely able to determine the brand of cigarette being smoked? I hate to echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but he made a fair point. One really cannot determine the brand from the way in which tobacco products are placed in entertainment programmes.

Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman may yet find that more emphasis will be placed on raising brand awareness through this method. There may be more attempts at raising brand awareness, rather than simply presenting a familiar star or television character smoking. It is undoubtedly the goal of a company to increase its market share and, as other forms of advertising are made unavailable to it, it will seek out the remaining opportunities.
The point of the new clause is to introduce the words "product placement" into the Bill. We are concerned that the existing constraints are not sufficiently effective. We should be deeply concerned that the research published in The Lancet showed that as many as 85 per cent. of films in the past 10 years showed tobacco use, and that tobacco brands appeared in one third of the films surveyed.
When we debated the issue in Committee, we raised with the Minister the problem that many of the most successful blockbuster films in this country emanate from Hollywood and are produced under codes, laws and conventions beyond the jurisdiction of this House. Some of the most blatant examples of product placement relate to American-sourced films. Nothing that could be done as a result of the Bill would curtail what is shown in an American film, unless the Government have plans for some sort of censorship over when the product placement occurs. An example of a brand being shown could involve the stars of a film having a long conversation while standing in front of a billboard advertising, say, Marlboro cigarettes. Under the Bill, it would remain possible for tobacco companies to promote a particular brand in that way.
Reading the research on films, I was concerned to discover the kind of money that goes into the effort to place products. For example, in the film "Mr. Destiny", Walt Disney studios charged advertisers $20,000 for showing a product, $40,000 for showing a product and having an actor mention the product's name, and $60,000 for showing an actor using the product. Those are very substantial sums.
Our purpose in tabling the new clause is to signal to those having to work with the existing arrangements for product placement that we are aware that there may be a major loophole in this area, and that the present constraints are not effective enough. I mentioned American films being shown here and the fact that they are one of the most powerful tools for the promotion of tobacco products. They are particularly effective among young people, among whom the rising prevalence of smoking is causing great concern.
One could not discuss the amendment without examining the rules already in place, which brings me to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). For his and other hon. Members' benefit, it is worth mentioning what the rules are concerning product placement in programmes.
6.30 pm
According to the rules,
Where their use is clearly justified editorially, products or services may be acquired at no, or less than, full cost. Provision of the article must not be conditional on any specific agreement as to the manner of its appearance in the programme.
The onus therefore rests entirely with the editor.
The notes accompanying the rules state:
No undue prominence may be given in any programme to a commercial product or service. In particular, any reference to such a product or service must be limited to what can clearly be justified by the editorial requirements of the programme itself.
Again, all the onus is on the editor.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that the problem lies with the extent of the editorial subjectivity involved. Under the current rules, product placement is clearly possible in programmes produced and shown in this country. We ought to have some control over it, but the rules are clearly insufficient to prevent the youth of today from telling us which brand of cigarettes their favourite film stars or television actors smoke.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I explore the issue of product placement as it relates to a later part of the Bill? My hon. Friend mentioned films made in the United States and distributed in this country. The Bill mentions only printed journalism; would the distributor of those films, or indeed someone who copied videos of them for commercial purposes, be subject to prosecution under my hon. Friend's proposals?

Mrs. Spelman: We discussed in Committee whether the proposal would result in thought police dashing around this country's cinemas deleting parts of films that featured blatant product placement. I seem to recall—the Minister may confirm this—that responsibility for adhering to a set of British guidelines on product placement rests with the distributor; but in practical terms it would be impossible to implement such censorship. We are talking about what are effectively foreign-produced, imported films, and a degree of international co-operation is clearly desirable.
The research in The Lancet, which in fact emanates from academics in the United States, has produced a proper analysis of the films concerned, most of which are American-based. It demonstrates that whatever legislation exists in the United States to control product placement is not particularly effective either. This is a classic example of the difficulty of taking effective unilateral action in an international market.
It is ridiculous to try to ban conventional tobacco advertising while leaving an enormous loophole in relation to product placement. It is plain that existing regulations do not work adequately in the context of a British-produced product over which we have some jurisdiction, and our purpose was to draw attention to the problem. I hope that the faith of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will be restored to some extent by the knowledge that we share a public health agenda in wishing to reduce smoking, especially in the vulnerable group who start smoking young and subsequently find it difficult to stop—if, indeed, they want to stop.
Amendment No. 1 deals with a different subject, but again I hope that all Members will appreciate—in the context of a health Bill—that we share the objective of reducing smoking. That is clearly desirable in public health terms. Ours is a probing amendment, intended to ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently catch an advertisement that is actually designed to reduce the prevalence of smoking.
I ask hon. Members to imagine a large poster, pitched at trying to deter under-age smokers, depicting a young person stubbing out a cigarette. The accompanying slogan would read, perhaps, "Stub it out—don't stub your life out." Such a poster, depicting someone using a tobacco product, would be in a sense attractive, and in a sense


pitched at young people; but its hard message would also be directed at young people, whom it would attempt to deter from smoking.
We must not risk catching anti-smoking health education posters in the ban on tobacco advertising. The amendment is intended to make it possible to continue with hard-hitting health education measures that may well require classical forms of advertising. As the Bill stands, it will close the door on such measures.

Sandra Gidley: Might not the amendment provide a loophole for manufacturers of low-tar cigarettes, enabling them to claim that their products were beneficial in health terms?

Mrs. Spelman: The amendment was not designed to create any sort of loophole. No amendments were tabled by Liberal Democrats in Committee, but it would have been helpful if the hon. Lady had tabled even one. Indeed, the whole question of low-tar products could have been raised in a series of amendments.
As someone who served in Committee on the Health and Social Care Bill, the hon. Lady presumably knows that no distinction is made between high, low and middle-tar products; the aim is to impose a blanket ban on tobacco advertising. Our probing amendment is intended to ensure that good health education campaigns are not caught by the legislation. I wish members of other parties would begin to believe that we have a health agenda, rather than being doubting Thomases.

Mr. David Taylor: Does not the amendment introduce an oxymoron? If it were accepted, clause 1 would state that "tobacco advertisement" meant an advertisement whose effect was to promote a tobacco product
but does not include an advertisement where the purpose is to reduce the prevalence of smoking".
Is that logically consistent?

Mrs. Spelman: I am not sure about the oxymoron. As the hon. Gentleman will note from the debate on the programme motion, we shall be jolly lucky if there are no oxymorons, given the speed at which the Bill zipped from Committee to Report. As it is, there is a typographical error in amendment No. 13, although there was certainly no intention of producing any grammatical or typographical mistakes.
As I have said, ours is a probing amendment, intended simply to ensure that we do not close opportunities for good, justified health education campaigns. It is quite possible that a health education poster might depict a tobacco product as part of a hard-hitting message about the health risks of taking up smoking, or continuing to smoke. I am sure that the Minister has an answer; I do not think it necessary to see more in the amendment than I have explained. Health education campaigns were successfully used by the previous Conservative Government to reduce the prevalence of smoking. We want to make it possible to continue such campaigns, which have been shown to work. That is the simple purpose of amendment No. 1.
Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41 enable us to debate a subject—the position of printers and publishers of written material—which, as my hon. Friends have said, is very important to Conservative Members. I pay tribute

to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who, with his experience in the printing industry, was the first to point out that the Bill might well place British printers in a very difficult position and at a competitive disadvantage. Our amendments seek to restore the position of British printers and publishers, to free them to tender in international markets for publications that, although directed principally at an overseas market, may be sold partly in the United Kingdom.
As originally drafted, the Bill would have placed British printing companies at a competitive disadvantage. I am therefore very pleased that the Government have conceded on the issue, so that publications printed in the United Kingdom whose main market is abroad will be able to compete equally with overseas publishers.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Government are trying to address that issue, but not the issue of in-flight magazines, which we raised in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said that he had taken an Air France flight that had an in-flight magazine containing tobacco advertisements. Although one would not think that that magazine would be caught by the provision, the plane was owned not by a French company but by a British one flying for Air France. The Government amendments in this group would not deal with that. The Bill would stop that British company flying for Air France because of those tobacco advertisements in the in-flight magazine. Is that not ridiculous?

Mrs. Spelman: I hope that, for the benefit of members of the Committee and other hon. Members in the Chamber, the Minister will address the issue of the predicament faced by United Kingdom airlines that have code-sharing arrangements. That issue is similar to the one that my hon. Friend has just described. When we purchase a ticket with a United Kingdom airline, we expect to be flying with that UK carrier, although the plane may be supplied by a continental carrier. However, will stewardesses on a Finnair flight returning to a Scandinavian country as a British Airways flight, for example, have to rush through the plane ripping out the in-flight magazines? It will be quite difficult practically for airlines to comply with those provisions.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: The provisions will also work in reverse. United Kingdom airlines operating out of United Kingdom airports—Newcastle airport provides a very good example—provide services for foreign airlines. Where do those airlines stand?

Mrs. Spelman: are now beginning to discuss the reality of how the provisions will work. Government amendment No. 41 accepts our attempt to accord the United Kingdom print industry a more level playing field in tendering for publications that are destined for overseas markets and may contain tobacco advertisements, although some copies may be sold in the United Kingdom. However, United Kingdom airlines will still be at a competitive disadvantage if, unlike other airlines bringing passengers to and from this country, they cannot have an in-flight magazine. That issue has yet to be resolved.
It will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has any thoughts on how to deal with that competitive disadvantage. I emphasise that the problem is especially


acute for United Kingdom airlines that have code-sharing arrangements. The Government will have to revisit that issue.
6.45 pm
The Government have made another related concession in amendment No. 40. The UK print industry would have been placed in a considerable predicament if the Government had decided not to leave out clause 2(3). That provision would have made it an offence for someone to publish or distribute a tobacco advertisement or
something else which is accompanied by a separate entity, containing, or being, a tobacco advertisement.
The removal of the provision may provide some practical help to British printers and distributors, who, unlike their overseas competitors, would have to comply with the provision.
Although our amendment No. 3 is eclipsed by the Government's concessions on the United Kingdom print industry, in Committee we identified another quirky problem. I must give credit for that where it is due. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid?Worcestershire was driving through his constituency when, passing a local antique shop, he was struck by the fact that the Bill's provisions would cover historical tobacco advertising signs. If hon. Members cannot picture the type of sign to which I am referring, they are the old enamel ones that promoted products such as Players or Senior Service cigarettes.
Those signs are now collectors items and are very sought after, and they might be placed outside an antique shop not to promote tobacco, but because they are desirable and have increased in value. Such museum-piece tobacco advertisements are also found occasionally in pubs. Fashion has it that such signs evoke nostalgia, as they cause some people to think back to when it was perhaps customary to smoke a pipe or to roll one's own cigarettes, using old tobacco brands that have now gone by the board. However, some of those brands are still being sold. One sometimes sees mirrors bearing the Marlboro logo, or Marlboro posters from the 1950s depicting scenes from the wild west. Pubs, restaurants and similar places of refreshment often display those items to enhance their ambience. The items are really curios and novelties.
It is unreasonable to try to ban those historical tobacco advertisements as their primary purpose is no longer to increase the market share of the erstwhile companies that promoted those brands. In our amendment No. 7, we seek to protect little antique shops that wish to display such enamel signs as part of their legitimate attempt to make a living from the sale of nostalgia and memorabilia, which many of us seek to procure as an investment or for sentimental reasons.
The other Government amendments in this group deal with points that we made in Committee. Government amendment No. 42, however, seems to provide that a proprietor would be guilty of an offence simply by displaying the price of tobacco products on a website or in a place where those products are sold. I ask the Minister to clarify that point. That would apply if such displays were not compliant with regulations that set out what is and what is not legitimate. In Standing Committee, the

Minister was asked whether, in due course, it would be possible for airlines selling duty-free cigarettes to display anywhere a list of prices for those products. Price is of the essence in the purchase of duty-free cigarettes, and the Minister acknowledged that a price list would have to be displayed. However, Government amendment No. 42 seems to be quite severe, as it appears to make it an offence to display the prices of cigarettes in a place where they are sold. Once again, we will have to wait for a proper definition of what constitutes a display.
The Bill contains no definition of what constitutes a compliant display and what does not. That is another example of how we are not a great deal further on than we were in Standing Committee. That leaves us disquieted.

Mr. Ian Bruce: We were told in Standing Committee that the Government had no intention of introducing any regulations to tell firms what they could or could not display. The matter has been left mute, as it were. It might be that a future Government, thinking that a product was being displayed incorrectly, would bring in some regulations. Is not that ridiculous?

Mrs. Spelman: Absolutely. The problem with Government amendment No. 42 is that it clarifies nothing. The absence of the regulations means that someone will have to get the judgment wrong and be dragged to court charged with an offence before what constitutes a compliant display is clarified for everyone else.
It is legitimate to ask whether it is allowable to stack packets of cigarettes on the trolley being rolled down a plane's central aisle. Must the air hostess have the price list in her pocket to comply with Government amendment No. 42? It is an important question about the practical working of the Bill, and we need an answer.
Government amendment No. 43 is a concession from Standing Committee that we value. The Bill states that giving away coupons of a nominal value could constitute an advertisement, and that the tobacco companies involved could be caught. In Standing Committee, we pointed out that the term "nominal sum" was ill-defined. It is feasible for a nominal sum to be quite substantial—for example, for a coupon or voucher to be worth £10 off the value of 200 cigarettes. We are pleased that the Government have conceded that the term "substantial discount" is better. However, the process seems rather long winded, as now we need a definition of the term "substantial discount".

Mr. Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend said that, as I was surprised to hear that she was unhappy about the term "nominal" yet more content with the term "substantial". If I were to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would try to develop that theme and say that the word "substantial" is not much more helpful than "nominal". Would my hon. Friend say that Government amendment No. 43 takes us much further forward?

Mrs. Spelman: The weakness of the word "nominal", which we tried to get changed in Standing Committee, stems from the fact that coupons can have quite a substantial value. One weakness of the Bill is that neither term is clearly defined. A further weakness is that we must wait an unspecified length of time before we get a regulation that gives guidance to companies about what is in order and what is not.
I touched on the issues affecting Government amendment No. 47 when I spoke to amendment No. 2 on product placement. The Bill attempts to assure us that the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996 cover tobacco advertising by the broadcast services. However, are those Acts effective? I hope that I showed earlier that it is clear that they are not sufficiently effective. A great deal of product placement goes on in the material broadcast by those services, despite the existence of the rules referred to in Government amendment No. 47. The Government should look again at the option preferred by the Opposition, which is to include the key phrase "product placement" in the Bill.

Mr. Barron: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 2. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) made a good job of saying exactly how product placement appears in different forms in the media. Earlier in the debate, I said that cigarette advertising was removed from television in 1965, but that the presence of brand names on television was preserved through the sponsorship of nationally televised sports such as cricket, Formula 1 and so on. Advertising and promotion are effectively the same thing. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that we cannot simply ban something without looking at what happens afterwards.
In Committee, we discussed the advertising agency memorandum about the television news coverage given to the launch of a new Jordan racing car. The memo said that coverage on "News at Ten" and the "Nine O'clock News" was worth £180,000 of television advertising. Taking into account the coverage on Sky, Channel 4 and Channel 5, the total coverage was said to be worth £250,000 of advertising on the national network. It is clear that advertising agencies and the tobacco companies that paid them wanted products to get covered in news items. Product placement is therefore very important.
Another example involves Sylvester Stallone, whose contract required that his films promoted a particular American tobacco product. The poster advertising tobacco products often plays a prominent role in scenes in Hollywood movies. Some people argue that it is relevant to the film, but I tend to disagree.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider how product placement can spread further in the media. Does she believe that Government amendment No. 47 would cover that possibility? That is especially important with television under British jurisdiction.
There is no question, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, but that young people look up to role models on television who use tobacco products. They recognise that a role model smokes a particular brand. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) said that when tobacco products appear on soap operas, often we cannot tell the brand. He should watch soaps a bit more regularly, because we can. Therefore, I think that amendment No. 2 has some merit, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.

7 pm

Mr. Atkinson: Now that I have read the Bill a little more thoroughly, I appreciate why the Minister did not answer what I said about publishers and publications, because they are better debated on this second group of amendments. Having looked at the Government's amendments, I can see what they are trying to do, but I still have concerns about how the Bill will operate with regard to publishers and printers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has dealt with printers who print a newspaper or magazine for export. However, I still do not understand how satellite printing of international publications will be affected. I have no idea whether publications such as the International Herald Tribune, USA Today and the Financial Times carry tobacco advertising—I suspect that they do not. Even so, what is the position? What is the principal market? Is the United Kingdom the principal market of USA Today, which is printed here as well as in other centres in Europe? If USA Today decided to carry cigarette and tobacco advertisements, would it be prosecuted?
A more likely scenario would involve magazines printed here by satellite. Technology has made satellite printing increasingly popular. It saves moving large quantities of heavy newsprint around the world, so more magazines will be using that process.
I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members read Hello!, but it is actually a Spanish magazine, with an English edition that circulates outside England, largely in Scandinavian countries whose readers have a good command of English. How do we define whether the UK is a principal market of the English language version of Hello! magazine? Would that be determined on the basis of circulation or revenue?

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is it not a worry for us, as British parliamentarians, that we will be setting up a competitive advantage for publishers in other countries? They can sell into the UK market simply by saying that their main market is still over there. The editions that they produce will not be printed here, thereby losing jobs and revenue. Such magazines would be greatly subsidised because the tobacco industry, as we have been told, will find ways of spending its promotional budget on subsidising them.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Although I mentioned newspapers and magazines with a large circulation, such as Hello!, I think that the problem will lie with the specialist magazines with smaller circulations, such as 4x4 cross-country vehicle specialist magazines. There are a number of such titles. They feature the Camel trophy and other motor sports events, which may or may not be covered by the Bill. It would be simple for such magazines to print abroad and supply copies to the UK.
Such magazines are international; they circulate in other parts of Europe and the United States. It would be easy to move their base from the UK to Europe. The situation would be ludicrous: one 4x4 magazine on the newsagent's shelf would be stuffed full of advertisements for cigarettes and tobacco, while another, printed in the UK, did not carry such advertisements. That would give the magazine printed outside England a serious competitive advantage. We need to explore that possibility further, because I would hate to see yet more confusion attached to the Bill.
Product placement in films is an extremely complex matter. We have talked about films made in the United States and distributed here, and films made on video in the United States and copied here. Then, of course, there are the old classic films. Will we have to stop showing Humphrey Bogart because a packet of Lucky Strike is in the background? There are still some fascinating alleyways to explore tonight.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) speaking to amendment No. 2. I am glad that she described it as a probing amendment, as I could not fully support it. Indeed, I have grave reservations about it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who, if I heard him correctly, suggested that it would be almost impossible to distinguish between product placement and what, for convenience, one could call a necessary theatrical prop. To make the distinction by means of regulations would be well nigh impossible.
I hold the view that there is nothing particularly wrong with product placement. I am not prepared to join the witch hunt. I believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed because there is nothing essentially wrong with the existing voluntary code and the necessary measures taken to control smuggling.
Hidden in this large group of amendments is amendment No. 32, in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and myself. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, which I regret, but I have studied its proceedings in the Official Report. The Minister introduced a new clause in Committee that said that there should be regulations governing the display of tobacco products at the point of sale or elsewhere—regulations quite separate from those governing advertising at the point of sale or elsewhere. Previously, it had been envisaged that there would be a single set of regulations governing both advertising and the display of products at the point of sale or elsewhere.
My instinctive reaction was that this was regulation gone mad. Regulation gone mad is also well exemplified in clause 8(4), which amendment No. 32 seeks to leave out. Subsection (4) demands that the regulations that govern displays
must make provision for a display which also amounts to an advertisement to be treated for the purpose of offences under this Act—

(a) as an advertisement and not as a display, or
(b) as a display and not as an advertisement."

It would be fascinating to analyse precisely what that subsection means. I suspect that it is simply that a display must be deemed either a display, which is subject to one set of regulations, or an advertisement, which is subject to another set of regulations.
The problem that we encounter, which has already been referred to, is that on Second Reading, throughout the Committee stage, and today, the Minister has consistently and constantly rebuffed suggestions to amend the definition in clause 1 so as to make it clear what counts as a tobacco advertisement. Subsection (4), which I argue should be deleted, refers to a display that "amounts to an advertisement". That begs the question: what precisely is

an advertisement? Is there a difference between an advertisement and something that "amounts to an advertisement"? That subsection highlights the need for a clearer and much more explicit definition.
In Committee, the Minister made a point that took me unawares. She said that the Government accepted that there were reasons for permitting a certain amount of advertising at points of sale, to communicate price or product availability. That seems to undermine the Government's whole argument. However, if a display of tobacco products is a tobacco advertisement as defined by clause 1—an advertisement whose purpose or effect is
to promote a tobacco product"—
such a display is already banned under clause 2. There is thus no need to provide in clause 8(4) for regulation that has already been provided in clause 2.
The subsection poses a series of questions. Our amendment asks whether there is really a difference in kind between display and advertisement. Can that difference be expressed or defined in practicable or credible regulations? I am not remotely convinced that those questions can be answered positively. That is why it would be far wiser to leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Forth: I support and echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but I shall concentrate on some of the other amendments in the group. I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friends about the concept of product placement. We can all recognise the phenomenon when we see it—or think we see it. That is one thing; it is quite another to provide a sufficiently viable framework within which to try to make such a distinction regularly and systematically and then to deal with it. The concept is difficult to define, and thus a difficult basis on which to implement measures successfully.
The problem is exacerbated because, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out, it commonly arises in old media presentations—be they films or whatever—rather than as a deliberate and subtle attempt, in the modern context, to promote a product. To try to use such a concept as has been suggested would require a much better working definition than has been offered thus far.
Amendment No. 1 is crucial. Were this ill begotten Bill ever to reach the statute book, we would risk losing the great expenditure and effort that has been put into warning people of the dangers of smoking. One of the paradoxes of our time is that the suppliers of tobacco products are obliged—although in many cases they do it voluntarily—to put health warnings about their product on its packaging.
A further paradox of our time is that the industry itself spends a great deal on issuing health warnings. If we are to go ahead with this ill conceived scheme, surely we must try to ensure—as far as we can—that when advertisements for the product are removed, proper health warnings are not eliminated at the same time. Although tobacco is a legal product and I believe that people should be absolutely free to use it, I accept that it is a proper responsibility of Government to warn people of the fact that it may endanger their health. However, having been properly informed of the dangers, adults should then be allowed to make up their own minds whether to use a substance—be it tobacco or alcohol.

Mr. David Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although adults may be exercising their own free will—as he describes it—they may also be unable to overcome the addictive effects of nicotine that have been so carefully implanted in them through a succession of earlier appeals to smoke? Many teenagers take up smoking. Fewer than 50 per cent. of those who start to smoke by the age of 15 have given up smoking by the age of 60.

Mr. Forth: That question introduces an element that I suspect you would not want me to pursue too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman makes a contentious assertion; he obviously believes it, but it might not be borne out. In any case, the argument would also apply to alcohol, to which many people, sadly, are addicted.
In connection with amendment No. 1, I want to make the point that we must not endanger any capability or willingness on the part of the manufacturers and promoters of the products to provide appropriate warnings. That, rightly, is the aim of the amendment. It is important to ensure that we do not jeopardise that.
Several of the amendments deal with the provisions under clause 4, with which we seem to be getting into the most awful difficulty. Although one can understand the motivation behind the clause, I doubt whether its provisions can be effectively implemented. Subsection (1)(c) refers to the "principal market" and the United Kingdom. As we have already seen—and as the Members who had the privilege, pleasure and honour of serving on the Standing Committee must have discovered over and over again—the Bill is shot through with vague concepts that are either ill defined or undefined, yet are crucial to the thrust and meaning of the measure. Subsection (1) illustrates that. The term "principal market" will be of no help or guidance whatever to those who will be given the responsibility of implementing the Bill should it ever become an Act.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out, the matter is complicated by the fact that, when one is dealing with the world of modern publication, it is not viable, satisfactory or deliverable to talk about one market as opposed to another, given the extent to which people, products, publications and information flow freely across international boundaries. That is one of the ironic effects of our membership both of the European Union and of the European Economic Area. It is thus even more difficult to define properly and adequately where one market begins and another ends. I submit that the term "principal market" with reference to the United Kingdom is extremely difficult to define. The fact that direct reference is made to that concept makes the provision of dubious value.
Subsection (d) refers to "a United Kingdom airline". Even that concept is difficult to define. Is Cathay Pacific a United Kingdom airline? Some years ago, a trick question asked, "What is the second biggest British airline?" Few people correctly answered that it was Cathay Pacific. The airline was, in essence, British-owned, even though it mainly operated in the far east. I mention that example only to illustrate the difficulty of giving an adequate definition of a phrase as apparently simple as "a United

Kingdom airline", as used in the measure. That aspect of the Bill is far from adequate, and the amendments do not help at all.
A similar problem, which arose when my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) moved the amendment, will arise later when we discuss nominal sums and substantial discounts. There is a genuine effort to improve the Bill and make it more accurate, but it falls far short of what is desirable.
I suspect that the Minister will say, "Don't worry about that, folks—it will all be made clear in regulations." That is the classic answer that Ministers give when presenting such a Bill, but I am not sure whether it is good enough in this case. Much of the Bill's thrust and its likely effectiveness depend on the viability and practicability of the regulations, rather than on the Bill itself, but even at this relatively late stage, we are no more able to judge whether it is likely to be effective. We are completely in the dark about how the Government will tackle the underpinning regulations, on which so much will depend. I find it very unsatisfactory that I am still unable to make that judgment.
I hope that the Minister will explain amendment No. 47—the final amendment in the group—because, coming new to the Bill, as I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, I am intrigued as to how such a change can be suggested. The suggestion is that we should change the wording in clause 12(2) from
This Act does not apply in relation to a tobacco advertisement
to
This Act does not apply in relation to anything included in a service".
At this stage, to move from the phrase "a tobacco advertisement" to the word "anything" involves a rather large leap of either faith or imagination.
I hope that the Minister can tell us how, now that the Bill has managed to reach this stage in its proceedings, she still has to ask us to approve an amendment that produces such a difference in meaning and direction. That is even more important because we are talking about an exemption, using the words,
This Act does not apply in relation to".
I can understand that that might be relevant to a tobacco advertisement, but it is remarkable to state:
This Act does not apply in relation to anything included in a service to which any of subsections (3) to (6) apply.
We need to hear a very comprehensive explanation from the Minister as to how she and the Government have got themselves into the position of having to make such a change at this stage.
All in all, the position is very unsatisfactory indeed. Notwithstanding the Standing Committee's mighty labours, and the huge accumulated brainpower and concentrated effort of its members during many sittings, the Bill is still pathetically inadequate, so I leave the House, including the hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, to judge the quality of its work. The fact that the Government have tabled so many poor quality amendments is a sad indictment of them.

Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the logical, honest and consistent approach, bearing in mind his comments so far, would be to vote against Third Reading?

Mr. Forth: Yes, and I intend to do so. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that little trailer for


what I fully intend to do—although the Minister has an opportunity to use her eloquence and powers of persuasion to make me change my mind. However, at the moment, not only do I disagree with the Bill's thrust and principle—which, of course, we are not now debating—but I have, I hope, shown that I believe the Bill to be so flawed that even if I agreed with its main purpose, I would feel unable to support it. The Minister now has an opportunity to persuade us all—and good luck to her.

Yvette Cooper: I shall try to deal with each amendment in this group and respond, in turn, to the points that hon. Members have made. On amendment No. 2, moved by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), we are sympathetic to her intention on product placement, although I was interested in the fact that many Conservative Back Benchers are perhaps not quite so sympathetic to it. The amendment is not necessary and, as worded, would not be helpful. I shall clarify the Government's view on product placement and how it will be covered by the Bill.
If product placement occurs in this country in the form of an agreement to promote a tobacco product, perhaps through a film or television programme, it will constitute a sponsorship agreement. If that were done through television, it would be covered by the Broadcasting Acts. If it were done through film, it would constitute a sponsorship agreement and be covered by the provisions on such agreements. Of course, if such product placement occurs abroad, we cannot prosecute the parties to the sponsorship agreement; we do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction in this respect.
What will happen if a film that includes an overt placement of a tobacco product, which is clearly promoted by a tobacco company, is distributed in this country? I make it clear that our intention is not to prevent films from showing smoking. We do not intend the Bill to cover films, or other kinds of theatrical expression, that show smoking as part of their artistic freedom of expression. We may not like the fact that a film or theatrical production glamorises or appears to promote smoking, but if smoking is part of the artistic freedom of expression, we have to be careful what we rule out, even though we disagree with it.
Under the Bill, we want to rule out advertisements that promote tobacco products in the course of a business; we do not want to restrict freedom of expression. In fact, I would defend the right of artists to smoke on television or in films. The Government should not censor such matters. However, if something is a tobacco advertisement and if it promotes a tobacco product in the course of a business—for example, if a Marlboro advert is strung out for three quarters of hour—it will be covered by the Bill, even if it is produced in another country, so distributors will need to consider their liability. They will, of course, have to have a defence if they did not know, or could not have foreseen, that that would be the effect, but distribution will be covered by the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 would exempt from the definition of an advertisement those advertisements that depict tobacco products where the purpose is to reduce the prevalence of smoking. If the purpose of an advertisement is to reduce the prevalence of smoking, it will not come under the definition of an advertisement the effect of which is to

promote a tobacco product. Such an advertisement will not be covered by the Bill, unless it is so useless and bad that its effect is to promote a tobacco product and smoking. If an advertisement is that bad, it should be withdrawn; it should be not put up on our billboards. There is no intention to prevent health education or health information advertisements, and they will not be covered by the Bill, so amendment No. 1 is unnecessary.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way because I am sure that she wants health messages to be effective. Is she aware of the excellent work of the life education caravan movement, which encourages youngsters to be aware of their bodies and how they can be harmed? It has advised us that telling people not to smoke encourages them to do just that. It is necessary to have a completely different approach to the problem. If an advertisement for non-smoking encourages people to experiment with smoking, it will be covered by the Bill.

Yvette Cooper: I would be extremely interested to see research to support the idea that such health information campaigns are counter-productive, although I have to admit that I have seen advertisements from other countries to encourage people to drink less that probably had the reverse effect. Advertisements to promote tobacco products are covered by the Bill; advertisements to help people to give up smoking or to prevent them from starting are not. A great deal of evidence would be needed to show that such advertisements had the opposite effect, and if that were the case, they should not be distributed.
On Government amendment No. 40, we reconsidered the issue of separate entities and inserts. Let me clarify our approach. We are not saying that separate entities are permissible and that it is acceptable to include inserts that advertise tobacco. We decided that clause 2(3) was unnecessary because inserts, such as those in our Sunday newspapers, that include tobacco advertisements count as published inserts and whoever has published them is responsible for them. If an insert is published with the magazine, the magazine publisher is liable. If it is tucked in by someone else at a later stage, the person who published the insert is responsible and whoever tucked it in is likely to be covered by the provisions on distribution. No matter how we look at it, those who are responsible for publishing or distributing the advertisement are likely to be caught by the Bill.
On Government amendment No. 41, we decided to reconsider the issue of United Kingdom printers. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said that they should not be prevented from working on foreign publications that contain tobacco advertisements if those publications would qualify for exclusion. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) also raised that matter. It would cause concern if clause 4(1)(c) permitted a publication to be produced, but the Bill's provisions caught the printer who was working on it. The amendment clarifies the situation.

Mr. David Taylor: Is my hon. Friend convinced that the clause, as amended, provides an adequate definition of the principal market as it relates to the United Kingdom?

Yvette Cooper: The concept of the principal market is an important part of the Bill. We do not want companies


whose principal market is not the UK to be covered by the Bill if the publication is also circulated here. We have not provided a specific quantification of what "principal market" might mean because it will vary in different circumstances. For example, the definition of an appropriate market share to determine whether the UK is a principal market will be different if a product has five or only two markets. If the biggest market for a publication is the UK, that will count as the principal market.

Mr. Forth: The Minister seems to be suggesting that if there were four or five markets of broadly equal size, which is not impossible, the principal market could be 20 or 25 per cent. Is that what she imagines principal to mean in such circumstances?

Yvette Cooper: The assessment would need to be made on individual cases, depending on the circumstances involved. There would probably be a different test for those publications that have several markets rather than just two. It would be wrong to provide a quantification of a market share that might be difficult to apply in different market circumstances.
Amendment No. 3 would create an additional exclusion for advertisements so that no offence would be committed in relation to a tobacco advertisement if it is contained in a tender for a contract to publish a magazine for an overseas market. The hon. Member for Meriden accepted that the amendment is covered by amendment No. 41, and we do not think that it is needed. Any communication that is in a sealed tender for a bid or which is part of an attempt to get a contract to publish a magazine in an overseas market would not need to become a tobacco advertisement that reached the public.
Amendment No. 7 raises an interesting matter. Again, we have some sympathy with its aim. We do not want historic tobacco advertisements or items of historic branding value to be caught by the new measures. Each case would need to be judged on its merits, but the Bill is not intended to prevent museums from displaying historic posters or items, or antique shops from displaying old plaques or memorabilia of obsolete brands. Those would obviously not be promoting tobacco products, in the same way as artistic representation on film or stage would not be regarded as promoting tobacco products. An historic object that is offered for sale would not be regarded as an advertisement to promote tobacco products.
The amendment would, however, create a loophole. We could not accept an exemption that allowed Marlboro, for example, to wheel out all its advertisements from the 1960s to promote its cigarettes today; nor would we want tobacco companies to decide to resurrect obsolete brands simply because they happened to have advertisements that were more than 30 years old and exempt from the Bill.

Mr. Ian Bruce: In Committee, I asked whether buildings with old advertisements that were no longer being promoted by a tobacco company were caught by the Bill. As the hon. Lady has had a few days to think about that, will she say whether they will be exempted, or will shops with outside billboards have to take action?

Yvette Cooper: It would depend on whether an historic item that did not promote a tobacco product was being

offered for sale or whether an advertisement that had been erected to promote a tobacco product had not been removed. It would not be acceptable to allow advertisements to continue to be left in place simply because someone put them up a couple of years ago and no one had got round to taking them down. It would not be acceptable to exempt them. A billboard that continued to hold an old advertisement because no one had replaced it would be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Hunter: The old Gallaher building in Belfast, which is now used for a different purpose, contains the name "Gallaher" as part of the brickwork. What is the Government's view on that complicated issue?

Yvette Cooper: It would be hard to argue that the purpose and effect of that brickwork was to promote a tobacco product and that it should be covered by the Bill. It is not intended to include historic features such as that.
Government amendment No. 42 ensures consistency between subsections (1) and (2) of clause 8, and I shall clarify the Government's intention. We have said that we do not want to have to draw up regulations on displays. We are relaxed about the way in which products and prices are ordinarily displayed, and we do not intend to restrict that. It is perfectly legitimate to have a certain amount of advertising at point of sale and for products to be displayed, with prices, so that they can be sold, because after all, tobacco is a legal product. Our only purpose in providing powers to draw up regulations is to deal with possible abuses, because we want to prevent tobacco companies from finding innovative forms of advertising that get round the Bill.
Amendment No. 32, which would remove what is, in effect, a trumping provision for the two sets of regulations on display and advertising at point of sale, would create difficulties. If we find that we do not need to introduce regulations on displays, we will not need subsection (4). We would like not to have to introduce those regulations, but if we decide that we need to do so, we will need clear definitions so that we know whether displays count as advertisements, and which regulations should therefore apply to them. We will need to set out links between the two sets of regulations.
Government amendments Nos. 43 and 44 respond to the debate in Committee about the concept of a "nominal sum", and to concern that the definition may not be broad enough to cover all the abuses that we might be concerned about. The hon. Member for Meriden sought to replace the concept of "nominal sum" with that of "market value", and I explained to her in Committee why we could not accept her amendment and how it would affect competitive practices.
Amendment No. 43 will, however, add the words,
or at a substantial discount".
That might refer to products that are sold, for example, at a discount of two thirds of the ordinary price, but which might not be included within the term "nominal sum". We will have to consult on the interpretation of the term "substantial discount". We would also have to consult if we wanted to introduce regulations. This is another area in which we hope not to need regulations, but we have included the power to make them in case of future abuses.
Government amendment No. 47 makes it clear that the Bill does not apply to anything included in a service regulated under the Broadcasting Acts. That does not apply


to tobacco advertisements or to provisions on sponsorship and brand sharing. We want to avoid overlap between the two areas of legislation to make implementation simpler.
A question was asked about the responsibility of airlines. The airline providing the services would be responsible for any advertising, so the test would be whether it was a UK airline. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) asked about international publications. I dealt with that when I talked about principal markets.
I propose that the House reject amendment No. 2, and accept the Government amendments.

Mrs. Spelman: Just before you arrived, Madam Deputy Speaker, I described this group of amendments as involving the whole world, his wife and the kitchen sink. Unfortunately, we have added a few more categories as a result of debating these diverse amendments. Regrettably, I am none the wiser for my probing amendments, except perhaps on the last point about airline code sharing. The Minister was helpful and clear on that point, and as her remarks will be reported in Hansard they will provide guidance to UK airlines and their code-sharing partners, which I am sure they will find helpful.
The Government's description of their amendments has left me considerably more confused. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his remarks, but we have been left completely in the dark about the definition of a principal market. That has not inspired confidence in Government amendment No. 40.
Amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment, and the debate on it has been useful because we have learned that the Government understand our disquiet about the possibility of product placement increasingly being used as an advertising vehicle when conventional forms of advertising are banned by the Bill. However, I was further disquieted when the Minister defined "product placement" as a sponsorship agreement. We are going round and round in circles because the Bill does not clearly define "sponsorship agreement".
The lateness of the hour and the fact that we have to curtail the Report stage in less than half an hour means that it is increasingly unlikely that we will get to the amendments on sponsorship agreement. [Interruption.] The Government imposed the deadline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) have tabled an important amendment in that group which seeks to make it clear that a sponsorship agreement is one in which a party to the agreement makes a contribution, in the course of business, towards a public event or activity. I am uneasy about the Government's interpretation of product placement as a sponsorship agreement, which has a weak definition in the Bill that we will probably not now be able to debate. The increasing confusion about those terms demonstrates that the correct course of action is to withdraw the amendment but to register the fact that we are left more confused by the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

PROHIBITION OF TOBACCO ADVERTISING

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (3).—[Yvette Cooper.]

Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 21, leave out "includes" and insert—
'shall, to the extent set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State after consultation with representatives of those involved in the electronic publication and transmission of material, include'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 34, in page 1, line 21, leave out "includes" and insert "does not include".
No. 35, in page 1, line 23, at end insert—
'unless the person is aware on first transmission of its contents or has had a notice from an enforcement authority giving reasonable time to have the contents removed.'.
No. 36, in clause 4 page 2, line 26, leave out—
'place or on a website'
and insert—
'real place or a virtual place via electronic transmission'.
No. 15, in page 4, line 1, leave out Clause 7.
No. 33, in clause 13, page 6, line 17, at end add—
'(2A) An internet service provider shall investigate complaints from an enforcement authority on payment of a fee to cover administrative costs.'
No. 13, in clause 18, page 9, line 36, after "section", insert "1(4)".
No. 22, in clause 20, page 10, line 13, at end insert—
'internet service provider" means a person who provides access to the internet,'.
No. 23, in page 10, line 18, at end insert—
website" means a location on the internet accessed by an address at which information is made available,'.

Mrs. Spelman: The amendments form a large group, but they are more focused than the previous group, in that their central point of reference is the new information technology, and the position of internet service providers and those who provide the means of transmission of information, all of whom will be affected by the Bill.
After discussing the position of ISPs in Standing Committee, we felt that several loose ends were left. We tried to secure from the Minister a duty to consult representatives of those involved in electronic publication and transmission of material, because we felt uneasy about agreeing to clauses that referred to those industries when we were not well qualified to comment on the full implications for them of the Bill's implementation. Perhaps the only member of the Committee who was better qualified than the rest was my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce); in due course, I shall give him a good opportunity to speak to the amendments, in recognition of the fact that he understands the issues better than the rest of us.
The issues are complex. Getting the legislation right is made more difficult by the fact that it deals with a sector that is constantly moving—the technology is still emerging and remains comparatively new to all of us. It is difficult to understand the way in which those involved


in electronic publication and transmission of material will be caught by provisions relating to tobacco advertising. I suspect that they have yet to analyse the full implications of the Bill. We felt that it was important that consultation with those parties should have taken place well before our scrutiny of the Bill, so that we might all better understand the way in which they would be affected, and have a better idea of what would be in the regulations which the Secretary of State is to draw up to govern the responsibilities to be borne by the new e-commerce industry in terms of overseeing opportunities to advertise tobacco products.
The huge attraction of the differential between taxation of tobacco products by the countries of continental Europe and by the United Kingdom means that tobacco products are increasingly advertised on the internet. Currently, it is legitimate for those living in the UK to secure their supplies of duty-free cigarettes over the internet, and that trade is likely to increase. That is why we are anxious to protect ISPs, which cannot reasonably be expected to know the minutiae of the postings on their myriad advertising points, which include bulletin boards; they are not always in a position to know precisely at any given time who has hacked into their provision to post advertising. Amendment No. 12 is designed to ensure that, before any draft regulations are imposed on that emerging industry, a proper process of consultation takes place on how to make them practicable, and several of the other amendments address those practicalities.
After Committee, we were left with profound doubts about whether the Bill was the right place for an attempt to regulate the e-commerce industry. Perhaps that industry's responsibility for advertising transmitted through that new medium of communication should be part of a completely separate Bill, and would more correctly be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry in the context of the industry's competitiveness. The last thing we want is to burden a fledgling industry with an irksome set of regulations that will make it difficult for it to compete in the emerging market.
That becomes even more apparent when we consider how companies that are responsible for the means of transmission might be caught up by the Bill. The Committee debated whether, not ISPs, but the companies that provide hardware, might be caught by the offences defined in the Bill, even if they were unaware that they had provided the conduit for tobacco advertising. We remain extremely concerned: the Bill embodies a stab at dealing with the possibility of tobacco advertising through new and less conventional means—but that stab deals clumsily with a new technology whose full implications it is difficult for us to envisage now.
It will be good if my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset now speaks specifically to the amendments that he tabled, which might make the Bill more practical and workable in relation to those involved in electronic publication and transmission.

Mr. Ian Bruce: At the end of Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked me to try to get my head round the problems that clearly confronted internet service providers and others involved in computing, and to come up with better ways of dealing with those issues.
The problem goes to the heart of the mission that the Prime Minister set for his whole Government, which is to make the United Kingdom the best place in which to do

e-business. I am afraid that, in its present form, the Bill will make the UK the worst place to do e-business. It will lay additional loads on our ISPs even if they carry no tobacco advertising, with the result that those who intend to set up as ISPs will find it easier to set up elsewhere, because the great defence offered is that as long as the internet service provision business is set up elsewhere, it can carry as much tobacco advertising as it wants, and when that advertising arrives in the United Kingdom, it will not be covered by the legislation.
I shall explain my amendments as briefly as I can, and hope that the Minister has time to respond in the short time available. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are aimed at the prohibition set out in clause 2. Subsection (4) states:
Distributing a tobacco advertisement includes transmitting it in electronic form, participating in doing so, and providing the means of transmission.
That might catch a company such as BT, if such an advertisement is sent across its lines; or the Conservative party, if someone goes from its website to another website that happens to carry tobacco advertising.
The defence comes later in the Bill. Clause 5(5) states:
In relation to a tobacco advertisement which is published or caused to be published by electronic means by an internet service provider, it is a defence for him, if charged with an offence under section 2(1), to prove that he was unaware that what he published or caused to be published was, or contained, a tobacco advertisement.
Basically, the clause says that it is an offence to do it, but there is a defence if the person did not know about it.
8 pm
I have tried, in the amendments which I have tabled, to deal with the matter more straightforwardly and to say that distributing a tobacco advertisement does not include transmitting it in electronic form, participating in doing so or providing the means of transmission, unless the person is aware on first transmission of its contents or has had notice from an enforcement authority, having been given reasonable time to have the contents removed.
I am saying, via the amendments, that if someone is knowingly involved in publishing the advertisement because he knew that something was promoting tobacco, that is an offence. That is what the Government are trying to do. However, if an authorised authority—I use those words carefully because they are defined in the Bill as meaning a weights and measures authority—comes to the website and says, "You are publishing an advertisement; please get it off," that is the way the matter is dealt with. If the advertisement is not taken off, an offence has been committed.
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, when the police go to an internet service provider and say, "You have got something that we want to have information about because someone is distributing pornography"—or whatever it is that they are investigating—it would be right, in terms of amendment No. 33, to pay a sensible administration fee for the matter to be checked out and for someone to do the necessary work. The amendment reads:
An internet service provider shall investigate complaints from an enforcement authority"—
that is, a weights and measures authority in the United Kingdom—
on payment of a fee to cover administrative costs.


That is fair to internet service providers.
I understand that there is a meeting tomorrow with the Minister or her officials and internet service providers. I am saying, "Don't put an enormous load on internet service providers. Don't leave them worrying about what they might do inadvertently and then find that they do not have a sufficient defence. Say carefully to a provider that if he sets up a deal with a tobacco company of any description, or some other person who is providing tobacco advertising, he is culpable and can be prosecuted." The individual, however, may have been an innocent party to all that.
We should remember that an internet service provider has not been clearly defined. The term includes virtually anyone who is doing anything over the internet. The worldwide web is an internet service provider. Many people are involved in the process of getting information on to someone's computer. They are involved as internet service providers.
Through amendment No. 36, I criticise the Government for using the term "website". If one so criticises the Government in that context, it is only fair to try to work out something better. I admit that I did so after consideration of the Bill had been completed in Committee, when the other members of the Committee had scooted off home. I was at my computer trying to work out the right way to deal with the matter.
Clause 4(2) reads:
The appropriate Minister may provide in regulations that no offence is committed under Section 2 in relation to a tobacco advertisement which … is in a place"—
that is, where tobacco is being sold—
or on a website where tobacco products are offered for sale".
That means that someone goes to a shop and receives some information through an advertisement. This might come within the regulations. The individual will buy the tobacco on the basis of the information that he is given. We all understand that.
In the virtual world, how is that done? The Minister has gone for the snappy title of website. Perhaps that is on the basis that everyone knows what a website is—it is difficult to define things that are virtual. Someone who accesses a website and obtains a tobacco advertisement is not on a website in the terms that we are discussing. He has not physically gone on to the website. He has downloaded the advertisement to his computer. He has gone to a place where there is an authorised distributor of the advertisement because it is a place that sells tobacco. The advertisement that appears on his computer is legal from the Minister's point of view, but not within the terms of the Bill. That is because it is not still on the website. The website is elsewhere and the information has found its way to the individual's computer.
I suggested that if the information were downloaded on to a large billboard, the situation would be exactly the same. In trying to help the Government, I am saying with some difficulty that if we talk of a real place or a virtual place via electronic transmission where tobacco products are offered for sale, we are coming within the ambit of what the Government are trying to do. In other words, the place where it is legal to see the advertisements is the place where the individual has transmitted them.
I admit that the entire problem has not been covered. For example, the boyfriend of one of my daughters creates advertisements. It would be legal for an advertisement that he had created to sell a tobacco product at a point of sale on the website. Unfortunately, while he is producing it, he would probably be acting illegally. It is only when the information is on the website that it becomes a legal advertisement.
The Government are trying to say that it is legal to have an advertisement when someone is buying tobacco on a website, and it is legal for that advertisement to be created in the United Kingdom, but that is not what the Bill provides. I urge the Minister to consider what we are attempting to do, so as to assist her. I ask her particularly to bear in mind what the poor old internet service provider will find if there is an unlimited number of people who can contact him. He will hear, "I was searching the web the other day and I came across an advertisement which was not selling tobacco. I know that the advertisement is illegal and you must take it off." The individual is asked, "Where were you?" He says, "I clicked on this and on that, and I am not quite sure how I really got there."
That is searching the web; we often end up where we do not expect to be. Websites are often designed to try to ensure that information that has not been requested gets on to computers. The arrival of naked ladies on a computer screen is often completely accidental. I accept that many people are doing their very best to get naked ladies on their screen. If someone goes into a search engine, he might discover that someone has downloaded information because he is trying to sell a porn site. In future, people will be trying to sell tobacco. People will ask for information and receive instead information about the selling of tobacco.
It has been difficult to cram all these ideas into a short period. I hope that I have given the Minister some time in which to respond. The amendments are intended to be helpful and to ensure that the United Kingdom becomes the best place in the world to do the sort of business that we are discussing.

Yvette Cooper: I shall deal with the amendments in turn.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would remove electronic distribution from the Bill and leave it to regulations. That is not the right approach; one principle of the Bill is to provide media neutrality, so that it applies to all media. Defences are then tailored, as appropriate, to different media, which is a sensible approach. The amendments would single out electronic distribution for special treatment, but not electronic publishing. There is therefore a lack of consistency. We said in Committee several times that the Government were sympathetic to the position of internet service providers and we will discuss with them the enforcement of the Bill. However, it would be wrong to write them, or others involved in electronic methods of communication, out of the script altogether.
I accept the intention behind amendments Nos. 34 and 35. In fact, they tend simply to rejig the provisions in the Bill. The intention of the Bill, and the purpose behind it, is to introduce a comprehensive ban and then introduce


appropriately targeted defences. The amendments would try to rejig that by building in the defences even before introducing the comprehensive ban.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: Not now, because I have limited time. I will give way if I have time when I have made these points in response.
Electronic distributors already have the defences, under clause 5(6), of being unaware, of being unable to prevent further distribution, or of not carrying on business in the United Kingdom. The amendments add nothing to those defences, but add the sense of someone who could tell ISPs about a tobacco advertisement authoritatively. We discussed that in Committee, when I made it clear that the Government are happy to work with ISPs to develop a workable system. However, we see no reason to introduce a bureaucracy to do so in the Bill, and believe that we can get a voluntary arrangement that would be effective in that area.
I accept the intention behind amendment No. 36, but I do not think that it adds anything to the Bill or improves it. The term "website" is currently understood to mean a location on the worldwide web, identified by a web address. There is a legitimate concern about what happens in five years' time if the idea of a website becomes redundant because technology has moved on. We have included clause 7 in the Bill so that we can keep up with the technology. The amendment would not add anything to the Bill, and we would still have to rely on clause 7 to keep up.
We cannot accept amendment No. 15, which would remove clause 7 and our order-making power to amend the Bill to take account of developments in technology. That power is not open-ended and does not allow us to change any provision on a whim. It is a narrow and specific power, allowing us to change only provisions relating to publishing or distributing by electronic means so as to react to developments in technology. We would not use that power lightly, but given the pace of technological development in that area, it is extremely important to have it, so that the Bill's intention is not rendered pointless by the rapid pace of technology.
Amendment No. 33 would allow particular businesses or private individuals to charge public authorities for obeying the law of the land. That is not appropriate and we do not undertake such action in other areas of the law. We are aware that ISPs have legitimate concerns.

Mr. Bruce: The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which has just been passed by the House, does precisely that for precisely those people who are targeted by the provision.

Yvette Cooper: We have said that we recognise that the ISPs have legitimate concerns, in that they should have, first, appropriate defences, especially those regarding the fact that they were not aware. Additionally, they should have additional defences as compared with print distributors and publishers. There should also be an effective system of implementing the Bill that does not put additional burdens or pressures on ISPs beyond what is necessary to implement the Bill sensibly.
8.15 pm
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is right to say that my officials are meeting ISPs. We are keen to work with them to set up a voluntary system, which works in other areas. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 raise issues concerning ISPs similar to those which a previous amendment raised about websites. Again, it is not necessary to provide further definitions in that area, for which we have a normal understanding of the wording. Furthermore, if that definition becomes obsolete because of changes in technology, we will have power, under clause 7, to amend it to respond to developments in technology in future. I therefore propose that we reject all the amendments in this group.

Mrs. Spelman: To make it clear, in seeking to point out to the House—
It being a quarter past Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [7 November and this day].
Amendment negatived.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 4

ADVERTISING: EXCLUSIONS

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 2, line 19, leave out—
'which is printed outside the United Kingdom and'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

Clause 8

DISPLAYS

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 4, line 4, leave out—
'tobacco products or causes them to be displayed'
and insert—
'or causes to be displayed tobacco products or their prices'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

Clause 9

PROHIBITION OF FREE DISTRIBUTIONS

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 4, line 42, after "sum", insert—
'or at a substantial discount'.
No. 44, in page 4, line 43, at end insert—
'() If regulations under subsection (6) provide for this section to apply to making products or coupons available at a substantial discount, the regulations must provide for the meaning of "substantial discount".'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

Clause 10

PROHIBITION OF SPONSORSHIP

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 5, line 7, after "which", insert—
', in the course of a business,'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—
'() It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the contribution referred to in subsection (2) was made in the course of a business.'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

Clause 11

BRANDSHARING

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 5, line 36, at end insert—
'() If regulations under this section provide for a prohibition or restriction to be subject to an exception, the regulations may also make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for a corresponding exception to have effect for the purposes of offences under section 2, 3, 8, 9 or l0.'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

Clause 12

TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 5, line 41, leave out "a tobacco advertisement" and insert "anything".—[Yvette Cooper.]

Clause 16

PENALTIES

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 9, line 3, leave out "three" and insert "six".—[Yvette Cooper.]
Amendment made: No. 50, in page 9, line 4, at end insert—

'; or
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has been extensively debated in Committee and also today, and I believe that it has been improved by our discussions. It is a ground-breaking measure, which introduces a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. It is ground-breaking also because it makes specific provision to address advertising on the internet. It is right that much of the time that we have spent today and in Committee has been on issues concerning the internet, which is an area of rapidly developing and changing technology.
As a result of debates in Committee, we have clarified the distinction between advertising and display—for example, the distinction between individual choice and operations undertaken in the course of business—and improved enforcement.
Many of the amendments tabled by the Opposition demonstrated conflicting points of view. Some appeared to tighten the Bill, such as those that proposed changes concerning product placement and products being offered at less than market value. Others sought to create huge gaping loopholes in the Bill, such as those concerning brand sharing, which we discussed earlier today.
It is important to recognise the overall significance of the Bill, which would ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship in this country. Smoking kills 120,000 people each year. That fact, shocking as it might be, cannot be repeated too often. One in two smokers will die from the habit. It is in that context that we are introducing the ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
People have a right to choose to smoke, but smoking is addictive, and they also have a right not to be pressurised by manipulative, seductive advertising into starting to smoke. They have a right not to be bombarded with advertisements and pressurised not to give up smoking. Some of the most insidious advertising of all is targeted at those who are trying to give up, possibly at the time of year when they are trying hardest. For example, when they have made a new year's resolution to stop, advertising might undermine their resolve and intention to give up.
Seventy per cent. of smokers say that they want to give up. Given the huge health impact of smoking and the health inequalities caused by smoking, it is right that we provide such people with every support that we can, through the NHS and through Parliament, when they want to give up smoking.
I strongly believe that people have a right to smoke, but I do not accept that tobacco companies have a right to spend £100 million of the profits that they gain from selling a deadly product on hooking new smokers. In a country that cares about preventing ill health, tackling health inequalities, and particularly protecting the health of children, we cannot ignore the effect of tobacco advertising.
In the end, children are at the heart of the Bill. The evidence shows that the most heavily advertised brands are those most likely to be smoked by children. Research in the US found that children as young as three were familiar with Joe Camel, and that children as young as six were as familiar with Joe Camel as they were with Mickey Mouse, and knew that the camel was associated with cigarettes. That is the kind of advertising that we should be concerned about.
A voluntary ban was not enough. It simply restricted advertising in a narrow area close to schools. What about the advertising that is not near schools? What about the advertising in the streets, in shopping centres and through brand sharing? What about the promotion through sponsorship of sports and public events? Those are some of the forms of advertising that the Bill will make unlawful. It is right that we should do that. The Bill will not stop artistic licence. It will not take away the right of journalists to applaud smoking, so long as they are not being sponsored to do so. It is about preventing big companies from using their size and their riches to promote products to people whose lives are at stake.
The Smee report, commissioned by Department of Health Ministers in 1992, set out the evidence of the impact of an advertising ban. After examining the evidence from Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand, it found that


in each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors.
The World Bank's recent report, "Curbing the Epidemic", stated:
A recent study of 22 high-income countries based on data from 1970 to 1992 concluded that comprehensive bans on cigarette advertising and promotion can reduce smoking, but more limited partial bans have little or no effect.
That is an important factor behind the Bill that we have presented and taken through the House.
The evidence is that banning tobacco advertising does reduce consumption, but only if the ban is comprehensive. That is important and explains why the Bill introduces an almost complete ban on tobacco advertising and promotion, with very limited, targeted exceptions. We know that only if we introduce a comprehensive ban will we make a real impact on smoking.
The Bill is part of a broader strategy to tackle smoking. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) raised concerns earlier about tobacco smoking being on the increase. In fact, the figures show that tobacco smoking increased between 1994 and 1996, but fell between 1996 and 1998. We await the recent figures with interest, but it is a matter of grave concern to us that the figures also show, and have shown since 1992, that smoking among young people is on the rise. That is exactly why we are introducing a ban on tobacco advertising.
The Government felt that the measures that were in place when we took office were not sufficient. Smoking had been on the increase, and something more needed to be done. That is why we are extending the most wide-scale publicly funded provision of smoking cessation services in Europe, and we are proud to do so.
Smoking is a fundamental cause of health inequalities in this country. That is why we are tackling smoking, providing people with support when they want to give up smoking, and preventing the tobacco companies from abusing their position by making it more difficult for people to give up an addictive product.
The Bill has been extensively debated. The main Opposition party did not support it on Second Reading, but I hope that it will do so now. Given the impact that the Bill could have on public health, and given that the Opposition have stated many times that they would like to see the prevalence of smoking fall, I hope that they will support the Bill on Third Reading. That will be the test of their commitment to reducing smoking and improving public health. I call on them to join us in the Lobby tonight in support of a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, which will ultimately narrow health inequalities and protect our children's health into the future.

Dr. Liam Fox: I should like to begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) for the tremendous work that they put into examining the Bill in the time allowed by the programme motion.
As the Minister for Public Health said, the Bill has a simple and oft-repeated aim. The Opposition share that aim, which is to reduce smoking. No one doubts that smoking is bad and damages health. As far as I know,

nobody has tried during the passage of the Bill to argue the converse and to suggest that smoking is not a bad thing. However, the Opposition have argued that an evidence-based approach must be brought to the debate. If doctors involved in treating the consequences of smoking have to practise evidence-based medicine, surely it is a useful discipline for the House to practise evidence-based policy. In other words, we must consider whether the Bill will work and achieve the aims that it sets out to achieve.
It is also necessary for the debate to be properly balanced and fully informed. The Minister said that smoking was a cause of health inequality, but it is not only the consumption of tobacco that produces inequalities. As she would be the first to admit, people who consume tobacco are far less likely to present early during any episode of illness, especially when they are on low incomes. That contributes as much to poor outcomes as tobacco usage and explains why smokers in middle-class areas have better survival rates than those in low-income areas. Wider issues such as those must be taken into account.
The first question is whether the Bill will work. Secondly, however, we must ask under what circumstances, if any, it is appropriate to ban the advertising of a legal product. That question is especially important when, as hon. Members on both sides of the House must candidly admit, the Government raise so much revenue from that product. Although health Ministers complain regularly about the tactics used by tobacco companies to raise consumption at particular times of year, I do not see the Treasury giving the money back. Health Ministers always pray for a reduction in tobacco consumption, but I have often suspected, in debates about the willingness—or otherwise—of Governments to reduce the consumption of tobacco, that the same number of Treasury officials are praying that smokers will not give up and will continue to provide money for the Government's coffers.
On Second Reading, the Opposition argued that a coherent strategy was required, but that the Government had not produced one. We also argued that the introduction of a ban would be merely window dressing if the price of tobacco products was falling and consumption was rising because they were available to more people. We said that the Government's failure to tackle smuggling effectively put more people at risk—especially those in the groups mentioned by the Minister. As all hon. Members can tell from anecdotal constituency evidence, it is increasingly easy for young people to gain access to tobacco, perhaps because it is available in pub car parks or because it has been smuggled and is cheap and readily available to them.
Despite those factors, and the Government's argument about the big impact of advertising, the explanatory notes to the Bill state that the eventual aim of the Bill is to reduce consumption by only 2.5 per cent. That is important in terms of decreased morbidity and mortality, but most people outside the House will not regard it as a dramatic reduction.
A number of practical difficulties have been mentioned—

Mr. Forth: I should like to ask my question now, as I sense that my hon. Friend is about comment—no doubt


briefly—on the detail of the Bill. Does he accept that the Bill must be revised through the addition of a sunset clause, a review requirement or another such provision? Surely we cannot walk blindly into introducing the Bill, assert that it is a good thing and leave it at that. Given all the uncertainties that he has already mentioned, what will my hon. Friend do about that, if it is not already too late?

Dr. Fox: My right hon. Friend will know from the selection list that we could not debate the concept of a time limit in respect of this legislation today. However, if evidence exists to show that such a ban works, there is nothing to fear from a time-limiting clause. If the measure does not work when it is enacted, it will be hard to argue for its continued existence. We shall attempt to introduce a time limit on the Bill in another place so that it becomes genuinely evidence based. Those who consider such issues rationally will regard that as fair and acceptable.
I want to consider some of the Bill's practical difficulties. I am grateful for the Minister's willingness in Committee to acknowledge some of the shortcomings in the original drafting and accept the spirit of many Opposition amendments in tabling Government amendments. The Government made welcome concessions on brand sharing; on offences, through Government amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 43; on electronic transmissions; and on sponsorship agreements. They will improve a measure that was not initially well drafted. Irrespective of hon. Members' feelings about the purpose of the Bill, it is in the interests of all legislators to ensure that the quality of Bills is as good as possible. However, practical difficulties remain. If we had more time, we might have been able to explore them more fully. They may yet make implementing the Bill impossible.
It is worth pointing out, in a difficult argument about restrictions on advertising a legal product, that the previous Government restricted tobacco advertising. The code of conduct that was introduced in 1994 set stringent limitations on such advertising. Governments in this country have not taken an absolute position; we are considering the extent to which we should make such a restriction.
The United Kingdom did well for many years in reducing tobacco consumption and smoking prevalence through a combination of price mechanism, education and restrictions, if not a ban, on tobacco advertising. There was a consensus on that in the House of Commons and in the country. The United Kingdom had a good record. We are considering the appropriate balance between the three policy components, and whether the Bill has achieved that.
We must also consider the requirements for a proper anti-smoking policy. As we said on Second Reading, we must re-examine our education policy. To convey an effective health message, it must be aimed at the right age group and sustained for long enough to make a difference. Too often, Ministers interfere politically and reject the advice of those who understand the matter better. We have thus failed to address the appropriate health message to the right client group. We have missed a trick, and we need to reconsider our education policy as part of an anti-smoking strategy.
An advertising ban will not remove one of the greatest influences on young people: the example set by parents and peer groups. Those matters must be tackled. We must

ensure that parents do not set youngsters a bad example by smoking, which only encourages them to believe that it is acceptable. We must also ensure that we diminish the influence of peer groups as much as possible. That task is rendered even more difficult when role models smoke. Earlier, the example was given of supermodels smoking on the catwalk, and the concept, especially for young girls, of a link between tobacco and being slim. That is a dangerous idea. As a society, we must consider how to tackle such matters.
The Minister mentioned what she perceived to be the success of advertising restrictions in other countries. We must ask about the other policies that were in place at the same time. No one would argue that simply banning advertising is a sufficient anti-smoking strategy. The Government will have their way because of their numerical superiority in Parliament and, over time, they will be able to make their case. We shall be able to judge the measure's effectiveness against whether tobacco consumption decreases in the real world.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend will know that a number of Conservative Members are very much in favour of a limitation on tobacco advertising because of the dangers that it can present to health. Does he, however, accept that the Bill had an opportunity to make two provisions that it does not make? The first is to increase the medical warning on a packet of cigarettes so that it occupies a much larger percentage of the display, as has been done in Australia; the second is to deal with the problem of passive smoking for those with lung diseases, for whom it is a considerable problem.

Dr. Fox: I should declare an interest in relation to my right hon. Friend's second point. As an asthma sufferer, I find it a perpetual source of irritation to have to inhale other people's tobacco smoke. However, that matter does not come within the scope of the Bill, and I am sure that you would quickly rule me out of order if I were to go down that route, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill has missed opportunities to consider wider issues that might have formed part of a fuller, more comprehensive anti-smoking strategy. However, he will be aware that, for every Conservative Member who might wish to go along with a ban on advertising, there will be another who believes that such a ban constitutes an unacceptable infringement of civil liberties.
As I was saying, we shall have the proof of the pudding later, when we determine whether the Government have been successful in achieving a reduction in smoking. The Bill is merely window dressing, and the Government are failing to take a broader grip on the problems of smuggling and reduced pricing that are pushing up—and will continue to push up—tobacco consumption.
Many hon. Members have strong reservations about restricting freedom, and I understand why they would wish to vote against the Bill on that basis. However, I have seen enough damage in coronary care units and respiratory units to understand the tragedy that tobacco consumption can produce. The Opposition do not intend to divide the House on the Bill tonight. We shall, however, seek to amemd it in another place to introduce a time limit to weigh the benefits of retaining the legislation


against the evidence that is produced. We all hope that tobacco consumption can be reduced, but we are less than confident that the Bill is the vehicle to produce that result.

John Robertson: I served on the Standing Committee, and I should like to have an input to the debate. As one who is new to this game, so to speak, I found the Standing Committee very educational. For example, Opposition Members wanted clarification about the word "advertising". They must have asked for that about 10 times and, even though my hon. Friend the Minister told them on several occasions that the definition was in clause 1, they proceeded to ask on several further occasions why it was not also included in other parts of the Bill, thus wasting time.
Earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned an article in The Daily Telegraph, which gives us an idea of the kind of advertising to which the tobacco industry is now stooping. It explains how a woman approached six undergraduates and asked them whether they would like to earn £50. To do so, they would have to go into pubs smoking and—among other criteria that they would have to fulfil—circulate among the other people there. They would have to dress in a glamorous fashion, hand round cigarettes—giving them away—and leave packets of cigarettes on unattended tables.
The aim was to attract people aged barely 18. As under-age drinking was taking place in some of the clubs involved, it was not possible to rule on the age of those smoking the cigarettes. The brand involved was Gauloises. It is not a cigarette with which I am familiar, but I have smelt it on occasion, and it is certainly recognisable by those who know someone who smokes it.
What I have described is a particularly disgraceful type of advertising, which I hope the Bill will cover.

Dr. Fox: We deprecate operations of that kind, but, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, the Bill will not cover such advertising.

John Robertson: I think it will, but no doubt the Minister will clarify the position. I certainly hope that it will be covered, but that, if it is not, an appropriate amendment will be tabled in the other place.
I do not wish to speak for long, mainly because I know that Opposition Members want to contribute—far be it from me to stop them—but I remind the House that the Bill has been introduced because 120,000 people die of tobacco-related illnesses each year. In 1996, 350,000 children aged between 11 and 15 were smoking regularly. I was sympathetic towards the amendment on product placement tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden, and I was sorry that the Government did not see fit to accept it. I fear that product placement is the tobacco industry's next step down the road of attacking—as I would put it—young people, and trying to persuade them to smoke earlier. It is important for us to tackle such advertising.
I congratulate The Daily Telegraph on its responsible article, although it is not a newspaper that supports my party very often. It has brought an issue to light, as I am sure the Minister will agree. I hope that if there is a loophole in the Bill, the Minister will take that on board, and it will be taken care of in the other place.

Mr. Nick Harvey: Let me again record our support for the Bill, which has worthy aims. If we have a regret, it is that the Government did not present the legislation sooner. We consider it to be a competent Bill—especially in its amended form, following Committee stage—and one whose scope is sensibly limited: it relies on existing legislation and regulatory frameworks to control a number of the media involved, but nevertheless is likely to add a substantial weapon to the campaign against smoking.
No one, surely, can doubt the role played by smoking in deteriorating public health in the United Kingdom and abroad. Smoking is connected with a range of diseases and other conditions; anything that can be done to reduce its prevalence, thereby improving public health, must be worth trying. It was argued on Second Reading, although the argument has featured less since then, that cigarette advertising did not increase consumption. The suggestion was fairly well demolished on Second Reading, and it cannot count for nothing that so much cigarette advertising takes place, but it is worth repeating that advertising generally does not enjoy complete commercial freedom. There are restraints on it, and responsibilities are placed on advertisers.
I do not think that the curtailing of commercial advertising would represent any terrible, swingeing loss of freedom of speech or individual liberty for producers. I do not believe that that is a high price to pay. However, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, we do not really know how effective the provision will be. That is a fair point. Nevertheless, on the balance of the arguments that we have heard and considered, I believe that it is worth trying the provision to see whether it might do some good.
Some goods points were made in Committee. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made one or two goods points about the internet and electronic advertising. It is fair to say, however, that he made those points at extraordinary length. I am entirely unclear whether that was a tactic to sustain the argument that not enough time was being provided to consider the Bill, or whether he simply could not help it. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. However, the argument that we have not given adequate time to the Bill is absolute nonsense. Although we did progress unusually quickly from Second Reading to Committee, and from Committee to Report, the total time given to the Bill has been more than adequate for a small, 20-clause measure.
Conservative Members have spent more time debating whether there is enough time, and dragging out our proceedings to try to demonstrate that there is not, than they have spent debating the principles at stake.

Mrs. Spelman: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in Committee the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was given an undertaking that on Report there would be a debate on new clause 5, but we have not had time for that debate?

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Lady's point is reasonable, in that I should have liked new clause 5 to be debated. However, it has not been selected for debate. It therefore seems to be less a lack of time and more that, for whatever reason, the new clause did not find favour in the Speaker's


Office and was not selected for debate today. When the Bill goes to the other place, perhaps a similar provision will have a chance for debate.

Sir Peter Emery: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman, as nicely as I can, that, as the selection list shows, there was not time to debate four whole groups of amendments comprising about 30 amendments? At the end of the debate, the occupant of the Chair had to put the Government amendments in those groups en masse without any debate whatsoever. I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman might want to be a little more careful in his assumptions.

Mr. Harvey: I was trying to be kind. It has to be said, however, that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) moved an amendment and spoke to that group for more than 30 minutes, but, at the end of that debate, did not press any of the amendments to a vote. We have seen exactly the same throughout the Bill's passage. The official Opposition are perfectly entitled to do that if they want. I am simply saying that, after all that, I do not believe that there is a sustainable argument that not enough time has been given to the Bill, which has only 20 clauses. The time provided, both in Committee and in the two full-scale debates in the House, has been proportionate to the scale of the Bill and its objectives. We have given more than adequate time to it.
Although I agree, as I said, that we have progressed more hurriedly than usual from one stage to another—which may or may not have something to do with certain events that we all believe to be pending—the total time that we have given to a short, 20-clause Bill has been more than adequate. If Conservative Members had been a little more concise in making some of their points, they would have had plenty of time, both today and in Committee, to debate all the groups of amendments.

Dr. Fox: I am a little puzzled. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the time given to the Bill was adequate, why did Liberal Democrat Members vote against the programme motion?

Mr. Harvey: We voted against that motion for the same reason that we have voted against other programme motions. We believe that the motions themselves are being drafted and moved before the Government have had a proper opportunity to assess the arguments that were made on Second Reading and to test the waters before deciding how much time should be provided. The details of the programme motion were perfectly reasonable, but my party opposed it—and other programme motions—because of the haste with which it was implemented. My party is in favour of programme motions—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the debate goes too wide, I remind the House that debate on Third Reading is restricted to the contents of a Bill. The question is whether this Bill should have a Third reading.

Mr. Harvey: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you observed that I was simply responding to interventions, but you are, of course, quite right.
This is a good Bill, with worthwhile aims. As a result of the amendments that have been made, it is competently drafted. My party is pleased to support it this evening.

Mr. Barron: I take great pleasure in supporting this Bill. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered it, and I found the debates very interesting. The Bill gives us an opportunity to take further last year's excellent work by the Select Committee on Health on the dangers of smoking.
I was surprised at the attitude displayed towards the Bill by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). Early on, he said that he was prepared to give the Bill a fair wind, and that he wanted to see the evidence that the resulting legislation would reduce smoking in this country by a certain amount. However, he said today that the Bill needed to be evidence based and that he needed to see that evidence.
On 21 December, the hon. Gentleman was sent five reports by the charity Action on Smoking and Health, with which I am involved. Those reports showed clear evidence—from the World Bank and from other international studies—that there is a relationship between tobacco advertising and promotion and the consumption of tobacco. What he said this evening leads me to assume that he has not read those reports. I hope that he takes some time next week, when the House is not sitting, to look at the reports and read the clear evidence that shows the causal link between tobacco advertising and promotion and smoking.
I paraphrase, but the hon. Member for Woodspring also said that no one doubts that smoking is bad for health. It is a pity that he did not read last year's report on the matter from the Select Committee on Health. There are people in society who doubt the relationship between ill health and smoking. Three quotations from the report will prove my point.
The Select Committee asked witnesses a specific question—whether they believed that smoking caused cancer beyond all reasonable doubt. The representative from the Gallaher group said:
It is generally accepted that smoking is neither a necessary… nor a sufficient …cause of disease and that causal conclusions in this regard are a matter of judgement…As such it would as yet be going too far to say that causation has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt".
The representative from Imperial Tobacco said:
not agree that smoking causes (these)…diseases beyond all reasonable doubt".
The representative from the firm RJ Reynolds said:
No—nobody knows what causes these diseases beyond all reasonable doubt
We know that 50 per cent. of people who smoke will have a shorter life than they should have. The people who have undermined public health policy for years are still coming out with the claim that smokers do not get hurt.
I hope that the Bill will make a start on reversing the way in which public health policies have been undermined. For years we have tried, through arguments and advertisements, to get people off cigarettes. The Government are spending £20 million a year on cessation programmes—more than any Government in the past. That money will not be used to good effect as long as tobacco companies are allowed to advertise and promote their product.
We are at last getting serious about tobacco and its lethal effects, and we are trying to get people off it. We cannot allow that project to be undermined in our popular culture by tobacco advertising. Neither can we allow the project to be undermined by members of political parties in this Chamber who are more concerned about their connections—in the past, but also possibly in the future—with the tobacco industry than they ale about public health in this country.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I support the Bill, and will do so if there is a Division on Third Reading. Like the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), my only regret is that this measure was not introduced sooner. Connections with the tobacco industry may have been one reason for that.
This issue was discussed in the Scottish Parliament on 17 January, when the Parliament unanimously supported the Bill. It also decided unanimously, under the Sewel procedure, to remit the Scottish sections of the Bill to this place for legislation.
I want to quote from one of the good speeches that was made by members of all parties that clay. One person argued:
A Sewel motion should not mean that Scottish ministers abdicate their responsibility in favour of the Westminster Parliament.
He went on to say:
Perhaps the Scottish Parliament should decide on its own bill, which could encompass not just advertising, but point-of-sale materials, sales to those who are under age, and more enforcement. Perhaps more of the issues should be dealt with in this chamber."—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 17 January 2001; Vol. 10, c. 279–80.]
Those are the views of the Conservative spokesperson in the Scottish Parliament, Mr. Ben Wallace. It is slightly ironic, because one of the amendments that we did not reach this evening was a Conservative amendment to remove the responsibilities from Scottish Ministers which the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament say our Ministers should not be abdicating. I will leave Conservative Members to explain low they reconcile the position north and south of the border. However, what Mr. Ben Wallace said in the Scottish Parliament, to unanimous assent, was important. He said that Scottish Ministers should look carefully at their responsibilities, monitoring those responsibilities and the effectiveness of the legislation, considering enforcement and signs of success and, indeed, further legislation if that is required.
For this evening, I offer my support for the Bill. I am happy that it is being included in the legislative process—perhaps just in time for coming events.

Yvette Cooper: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will reply to the Third Reading debate.
I thank members of the Committee for their hard work during the Bill's passage through the House. I welcome the contributions this evening by my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson). The example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Anniesland, of students being paid by Gauloises to smoke in bars, will be covered by the Bill, either by the sponsorship or the free distribution provisions.
I take this opportunity to welcome the support for the Bill from the hon. Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am glad that they will be joining us in the Lobby. I also welcome the decline in the opposition of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—that is probably the best way to describe it. As I understand it, his party will not be opposing Third Reading. I urge him to listen to the evidence that he says is so important and to go further by joining us in voting to give the Bill a Third Reading. I urge him to join us in the Lobby tonight.
This is a good and important Bill. We were keen to introduce the ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship across Europe, and we will continue to push for a Europe-wide ban. Clearly, the more co-operation we can get at a European level, the greater the impact will be on public health. Equally, we will continue to push for co-ordinated action worldwide through the World Health Organisation.
This is an important Bill. It is not about preventing freedom of choice—people have the choice whether to smoke tobacco products. However, they should also have the choice to give up if they want to, without pressure from the tobacco companies and without the pressure of tobacco advertising. That is why we are introducing a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 5.

Division No 119]
[8.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Bennett, Andrew F



Benton, Joe


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Berry, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Belts, Clive


Austin, John
Blackman, Liz


Bailey, Adrian
Blears, Ms Hazel


Baker, Norman
Blizzard, Bob


Ballard, Jackie
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Banks, Tony
Bradshaw, Ben


Barnes, Harry
Brake, Tom


Barron, Kevin
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Battle, John
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beard, Nigel
Browne, Desmond


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Begg, Miss Anne
Buck, Ms Karen


Beggs, Roy
Burden, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burgon, Colin






Burstow, Paul
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gidley, Sandra


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grocott, Bruce


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clelland, David
Harvey, Nick


Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Cohen, Harry
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hendrick, Mark


Cooper, Yvette
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Cotter, Brian
Hesford, Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Cranston, Ross
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Crausby, David
Hoey, Kate


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hood, Jimmy


Cummings, John
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Humble, Mrs Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Hurst, Alan


Darvill, Keith
Hutton, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jamieson, David



Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Denham, Rt Hon John
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny Donaldson, Jeffrey (Wolverh'ton SW)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dowd, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Drew, David
Joyce, Eric


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Efford, Clive
Keetch, Paul


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kemp, Fraser


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ennis, Jeff
Kidney, David


Etherington, Bill
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fearn, Ronnie
Kirkwood, Archy


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lammy, David


Hint, Caroline
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Flynn, Paul
Leslie, Christopher


Follett, Barbara
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foulkes, George
Linton, Martin


Galbraith, Sam
Livsey, Richard


Gapes, Mike
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Lock, David


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Love, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
McAvoy, Thomas





McDonagh, Siobhain
Sanders, Adrian


Macdonald, Calum
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonnell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sheerman, Barry


McIsaac, Shona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNamara, Kevin
Singh, Marsha


McNulty, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mallaber, Judy



Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Maxton, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Merron, Gillian
Soley, Clive


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moore, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morley, Elliot
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stringer, Graham



Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mullin, Chris
Stunell, Andrew


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Naysmith, Dr Doug



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Temple-Morris, Peter


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pendry, Rt Hon Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pike, Peter L
Touhig, Don


Pond, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Pope, Greg
Truswell, Paul


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Primarolo, Dawn
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prosser, Gwyn
Tyler, Paul


Purchase, Ken

Tynan, Bill


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Walley, Ms Joan


Quinn, Lawrie
ward, Ms Claire


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Watts, David


Rendel, David
white, Brian


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wood, Mike



Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Woodward, Shaun


Rowlands, Ted
Woolas, Phil


Ruane, Chris
Wray, James


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Graham Allen and


Salter, Martin
Mr. Ian Pearson.






NOES


Body, Sir Richard
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Cash, William



Chope, Christopher
Tellers for the Noes:


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mr. Gerald Howarth and



Mr. Andrew Hunter.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and parsed.

Orders of the Day — Capital Allowances Bill

[Relevant document: First Report of the joint committee on Tax simplification Bills,HC175.]

considered in committee.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the committee of the whole House be discharged from considering the Bill.—[Dawn primarolo.]

The committee divided: Ayes 313, Noes 12.

Division No 120]
[9.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Cohen, Harry



Coleman, Iain


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Connarty, Michael


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Cooper, Yvette


Austin, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bailey, Adrian
Cotter, Brian


Baker, Norman
Cousins, Jim


Ballard, Jackie
Cox, Tom



Banks, Tony
Cranston, Ross


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Battle, John



Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beard, Nigel
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Darvill, Keith


Begg, Miss Anne
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)



Benton, Joe
Denham, Rt Hon John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobbin, Jim


Berry, Roger
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H


Blackman, Liz
Doran, Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dowd, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Drew, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Efford, Clive


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Ennis, Jeff


Browne, Desmond
Etherington, Bill


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fearn, Ronnie


Buck, Ms Karen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burden, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Burnett, John
Flint, Caroline


Burstow, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Butler, Mrs Christine
Follett, Barbara


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Foulkes, George



Galbraith, Sam


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Cann, Jamie
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Caplin, Ivor
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Caton, Martin
Gerrard, Neil


Cawsey, Ian
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gidley, Sandra


Chaytor, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clapham, Michael
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Golding, Mrs Llin






Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Main, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Martlew, Eric


Hancock, Mike
Maxton, John


Hanson, David
Merron, Gillian


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moore, Michael


Hendrick, Mark
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hepburn, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heppell, John
Morley, Elliot


Hesford, Stephen
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hoey, Kate
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoyle, Lindsay
Öpik, Lembit


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Humble, Mrs Joan
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hurst, Alan
Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pike, Peter L


Illsley, Eric
Pond, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Pound, Stephen


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn



Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Quinn, Lawrie


Joyce, Eric
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rendel, David


Keetch, Paul
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Kemp, Fraser



Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kidney, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rowlands, Ted


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ruane, Chris


Lammy, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Leslie, Christopher
Ryan, Ms Joan


Levitt, Tom
Salmond, Alex


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Salter, Martin


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sanders, Adrian


Linton, Martin
Sarwar, Mohammad


Livsey, Richard
Savidge, Malcolm


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lock, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Love, Andrew
Shipley, Ms Debra


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Singh, Marsha


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McIsaac, Shona



McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)



McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)





Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Soley, Clive
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Spellar, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tyler, Paul


Steinberg, Gerry
Tynan, Bill


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Ward, Ms claire


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wareing, Robert N


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Watts, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stuart Ms Gisela
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Woodward, Shaun


Temple-Morris, Peter
Woolas, Phil


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wray, James


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Tonge, Dr Jenny



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trickett, Jon
Mr. Ian Pearson and


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Graham Allen.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Body, Sir Richard
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Chope, Christopher
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Donaldson, Jeffrey



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tellers for the Noes:


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. Eric Forth and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Gerald Howarth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Order for third Reading read.

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before we proceed to consideration of the Bill on Third Reading, will you advise the House whether it is possible to determine how long the Committee sat? I have the report and I cannot identify for how many hours the Committee considered a Bill of many hundreds of clauses.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): That is not a matter for the Chair. We shall now proceed with Third Reading.

Dawn Primarolo: I am pleased to open the debate. The Bill differs in several ways from Finance Bills and most other Bills that deal with tax. It is the first Bill to come out of the project that is rewriting the United Kingdom direct tax code. It is also the first Bill to have been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills.
The Bill commands widespread support within the House and from businesses, tax practitioners and others. I do not claim that as a first. Other Bills may well have received equal support. Rather more may have deserved it. However, as a simple matter of observation, the Bill


has united people in support of a proposition that is neither contentious nor complex. Put simply, it is that tax legislation should be clearer and easier to understand.
It may help if I start by describing formally what the Bill does. With minor changes, it rewrites legislation about capital allowances. Broadly speaking, capital allowances are given to businesses that incur capital expenditure on assets that they use in their business. On the basis of estimates for 2000–01, capital allowances are worth more than £18 billion. They affect most businesses in one way or another. This is an important piece of legislation by any standards.
The Bill is not about the substance of those allowances. That was decided in past Finance Acts. Equally, it will be for future Finance Bills to make any substantial changes. The Bill's purpose is rather to make legislation clearer and easier to use. It is the first product of the Inland Revenue's tax law rewrite project. That project was set up in 1996 by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Its remit is to rewrite all or most of the United Kingdom's direct tax legislation.
I apologise if everyone in the Chamber already appreciates the point, but I must emphasise that the process of putting legislation into clearer and more modern shape and language does not include changing tax policies. The project is not about that, and never was. Proposals for changing policy will continue to be dealt with in the usual way, through Finance Bills.
It was recognised from the outset, however, that some minor changes might be helpful to improve legislation. Examples are legislation to replace extra-statutory concessions, bridging gaps in legislation, and clarifying grey areas of legislation. The Bill covers 66 such points, to which the project drew attention as possible changes in the law.
The 66 changes, and the Bill more generally, were scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills. The Committee concluded that the changes were indeed of only minor significance. The Committee's first report also commended the Bill as
a welcome clarification of the existing law".
Perhaps 1 may be permitted to say a few words about that process, as this is the first tax simplification Bill, about which a few Members have previously expressed concerns, especially on Second Reading. The procedure was recommended for tax simplification Bills by the Select Committee on Procedure in January 1997. It concluded that a new procedure was appropriate for tax simplification Bills, given that they are akin to, but different from, consolidation Bills. That led to Standing Order No. 60, passed in March 1997, which provides for tax simplification Bills to be referred after Second Reading to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
A Joint Committee of the two Houses is by no means unprecedented. It is established practice for consolidation Bills, including Bills which, since 1949, may include minor changes in law. Nor is it unprecedented for a Joint Committee to consider a Bill relating to tax. I understand the principle that concerned the Members who on Second Reading expressed doubt about aspects of that process. However, as the Procedure Committee noted in 1997, the 1952 Customs and Excise Bill was committed to a Joint Committee, without qualms and to good effect. In 1997, the Procedure Committee did not consider any constitutional objection to be well founded.
That procedure has worked well in practice with the Capital Allowances Bill. The Joint Committee benefited from the expertise and experience of the several noble Lords, and also had the benefit of hearing evidence from Mr. Adam Broke. I should like to place on record the thanks of the Committee and the House for the time that he spent with the Committee. He is an eminent tax practitioner in his own right and a past president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. He is also a member of the project's steering and consultative committees, and as such, could assist the Committee with the extensive consultation procedure that preceded the Bill. The Joint Committee's consideration of the Bill has also, I suggest, fully answered the concerns expressed by Opposition Members on Second Reading. The Committee took evidence in public and scrutinised the Bill—and undertook that very much as a joint exercise.
Other fears expressed by Opposition Members proved to be equally unfounded. All members of the Committee took part in the scrutiny of the Bill and the examination of witnesses, demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of the issues. The Joint Committee's report confirms and reinforces the comments made previously by businesses, professionals and others.
For example, the Institute of Directors commented in August:
the Bill is a magnificent achievement. It will sweep away not just the Capital Allowances Act 1990, but many other bits of legislation scattered through Finance Acts.
The tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales similarly welcomed the Bill. It commented:
the quality of the draft reflects the enormous amount of work undertaken by the Revenue in consultation with organisations such as ours.
The Law Society similarly said in evidence to the Joint Committee:
we welcome the publication of the Capital Allowances Bill. We believe that it does represent a significant improvement upon the existing legislation.
The Bill has also met with support from both sides of the House. In the course of Second Reading, I acknowledged the contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) in setting up the rewrite project. They have both now participated in the first-fruits of the project, the former as Chairman of the Joint Committee and the latter as a current member of the project's steering committee. With such a broad basis of agreement on what is, as I have said, not a controversial proposition, the Bill comes from the Joint Committee with no amendments.
That is why we have proceeded directly to Third Reading. This process was provided for in Standing Order No. 60 in March 1997. The Bill is a significant demonstration of the commitment not just of the Government, but of the House, to make tax legislation clearer and easier to understand. It will help business, other taxpayers and those who advise them. I commend it to the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that the Bill, as its long title states, is a Bill
To restate, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to capital allowances.


I hope that hon. Members who are called to speak will bear that limited purpose in mind, and will not seek to broaden the debate to cover general issues of taxation or budgetary policy.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Order Paper states that the first report of the Joint Committee is relevant, so presumably that means that we will be able to refer to that report in the debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Indeed you may.

Mr. Forth: Oh, excellent.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I join the Minister in congratulating all those who have been involved in the tax rewrite project—Mr. Adam Broke and all the officials who worked on the project, and the hon. Lady's officials in the Treasury.
We welcome the Bill. To restate the law on capital allowances is a tremendous feat, which has involved an unbelievable number of man-hours. The House should recognise what an important step the Bill is in making law simpler and easier to understand.
I used the phrases "restate the law" and "making law simpler", but as you pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill is a restatement, not a simplification. The point is raised in the report, and I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) will refer to it.
The Minister quoted Mr. Richard Baron, who wrote in Accountancy Age that the Bill was "a magnificent achievement". That remark represents recognition by practitioners of tax law that the Bill is worth praising. Mr. Baron went on:
It will sweep away not just the Capital Allowances Act 1990, but many other bits of legislation scattered through Finance Acts. The table of repeals is four pages long.
He continued:
Moreover, the Act is not too long. One big fear of the Project was that using plain English would mean using far more words than old-style tangled and condensed drafting. It has not happened. If we leave out consequential amendments and transitional provisions, we have a Bill of only 254 pages, well-spaced and in decent sized print.
That is recognition that the project has achieved its objective.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend says that the Bill is simple, and in one sense it may be. We are being asked to accept that it is but a simplification of existing law. Will my hon. Friend tell the House why he thinks that three sittings were sufficient for the Committee to satisfy itself that a Bill of some 332 pages was but a simplification of existing law?

Mr. Ottaway: I was trying to emphasise that the Bill was not a simplification, but a restatement. I will come in a moment to the question of sittings. I was a minority of one on the Committee who believed that we should have taken more independent external advice.
That was the first lime that we had gone through the procedure. We sat as a Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills with Members of the other place, but this House had a majority. That was a new procedure, so I want to dwell on it for a moment.
I shall make three points about the operation of the Select Committee on Procedure and the Joint Committee. The Procedure Committee gave the Joint Committee the task of reporting to the House any problems that might arise.
My first point concerns the Joint Committee's composition, which the House debated at length. We became a bit caught up in guerrilla warfare, and its membership was debated in some detail. The other place nominated six of its Members, two of whom were members of the original tax law rewrite committee. Their input was extremely helpful. They have served Parliament and this country with distinction in their parliamentary careers and their integrity is beyond doubt, but 1 question whether their membership of the Committee was appropriate. As they were members of the original tax law rewrite committee, I am concerned about whether they had a conflict of interest in respect of the Joint Committee. I believe that it is irregular for those who oversaw the original drafting subsequently to be in a position to opine upon its effectiveness. I am not saying that it was improper for members of the original tax law rewrite committee to participate in the Joint Committee proceedings, but I am not at ease with that arrangement.
Secondly, I turn to me point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in his intervention. All the witnesses who gave evidence to the Joint Committee had participated in the tax rewrite project. The quality of their answers was flawless; they gave evidence just as the Committee wanted it and they answered every question simply and to the best of their ability—but they were not independent. No independent witness could consider the Bill and the rewrite, and say simply, "Yes, I think that these people have got it right." As virtually the only Opposition Member who served on the Committee, I might have faced the task of sitting down and spending several weeks analysing the Bill against the original law. Indeed, it took a number of officials on the tax rewrite committee several years to rewrite the proposals. I had to make a decision.

Dawn Primarolo: appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I offered him direct access to officials without ministerial supervision. If he felt that he would require such assistance to consider the Bill and to recognise the issues that it raised, he could have taken that offer up, but he declined it. Similarly, Opposition Front Benchers have direct access to officials without ministerial presence or knowledge for assistance in considering the technical detail of double taxation treaties.

Mr. Ottaway: I must confess that I do not recall that offer, but if the Paymaster General says that it was made, that is fine. However, she is missing the point. The Joint Committee should have had the advice of an independent witness.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: I give way first to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe.

Mr. Clarke: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Joint Committee would undoubtedly have called and heard any witness that he wanted to appear before it, had he named such a person? Can he name the independent witness from whom he wanted to hear, bearing in mind the five years of consultation and the circulation of exposure drafts to every conceivable professional and representative body? The Bill received the support of those bodies, and we heard no particular dissent from them.

Mr. Ottaway: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, he and I disagree on that point. I did not propose a name because it was obvious that I was in a minority position, but I suggest that a partner from a leading firm of City solicitors would have made a perfectly adequate witness. If I had believed that my right hon. and learned Friend, as Chairman of the Committee, agreed with such a proposal, I would have dug out a name.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend knows that it is standard for a Select Committee to have advisers who can advise on the subject before it and on the questions to be asked. Did the Committee receive any independent advice about the content of the Bill or the questions to be asked of witnesses?

Mr. Ottaway: I shall answer that question with some care. If I simply said no, that would imply a slur on the witnesses. They gave evidence with absolute integrity, but they were part of the tax rewrite project. No witness was not part of it.

Mr. Hogg: There was no independent advice?

Mr. Ottaway: That is correct.

Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his efforts. I found it odd that the Joint Committee held only three brief sittings. The minutes record long declarations of interest; I remind hon. Members that I have declared mine in the Register. It appears that no amendment was moved and that none of the 581 clauses or four schedules was believed to be defective. Did the Committee consider all 581 clauses, and was it satisfied that none added to or subtracted from existing law?

Mr. Ottaway: The Committee considered the 60-odd minor changes in sequence. An amendment was moved, but the Committee did not accept it.

Mr. Eric Forth: On page 47 of the minutes of the Joint Committee for 31 January, the Chairman is recorded as saying:
can Members of the Committee indicate if they agree that we should make no amendment whatever? (Members indicated by a show of hands)".
If I understand that correctly, the Committee agreed early in its proceedings that it would make no amendments. What sort of scrutiny does that suggest?

Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend should not read lack of diligence into that. The Committee had every

opportunity to consider amendments; it took the changes en bloc and quizzed the witnesses, and an amendment was tabled.
The Paymaster General said that the Committee scrutinised the Bill. I would not have used such a phrase. It had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill, if it chose to do that. However, I have no idea whether the Bill reproduces the sense of the original draft measure. I am reliably informed that it does. I accept the word of those who gave evidence that it did, but unless I had given up several weeks of my time, I would not have had the opportunity to compare the current measure with the original drafting.

Dawn Primarolo: I am disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments at the Dispatch Box, because he did not make them in Committee. He had every opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. He claims that we did not have independent advisers, yet he did not propose anyone. He said that we did not have the right witnesses, but again, he did not suggest anyone. Now, having agreed to the report, which had unanimous support, he claims that he did not know what he was doing. Perhaps he should think carefully about serving on such a Committee in future.

Mr. Ottaway: The Paymaster General knows that that is a complete distortion of events. At the first sitting of the Joint Committee, I clearly and repeatedly made the point that I have made this evening. The minutes show that.

Mr. David Ruffley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ottaway: I shall do so shortly. The Paymaster General should not claim that I am misrepresenting things. If I had believed that she agreed with the proposal that I made, I could have produced the name of a suitable witness in no time.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman did not ask me.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister says that I did not ask her. The minutes of evidence make it clear what happened, and what debates took place. I am sorry if she was not listening at the time.

Mr. Ruffley: I wish to make a helpful intervention. I think that my hon. Friend said a few moments ago that the Joint Committee agreed minor changes. As we know, the purpose of the Bill is to preserve the effect of existing law, subject to any minor changes that might be desirable. How many minor changes were there, and was the Committee satisfied that they were minor?

Mr. Ottaway: I believe that there were 66. The Committee was advised that they were minor, and it accepted that recommendation. The point that I am making is clear, and I hope that the Procedure Committee will consider the matter.
A further point concerns the scope of the Committee. We took the Bill as it was. However, it was not clear who had decided the format. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland made the important point that it agreed with the


Bill but recommended that the new legislation should be accompanied by overviews, explanatory notes and signposts. It argued that self-assessment legislation meant that the taxpayer had a right to understand tax law.
The institute's report states:
As a matter of principle it is our view that tax law should be capable of being understood by an intelligent taxpayer who is prepared to devote a reasonable amount of time to the task. Unfortunately, in many areas of tax law, so timid is the work of rewriting that an intelligent taxpayer would need a long period of study to understand with any degree of certainty what his tax liability is and how particular legislation affects him.
It continues:
We are aware that a Parliamentary working party has considered the format of bills and acts generally and it has reported to, and obtained the approval of both Houses for proposals which reject many of the suggestions of the Project Team, including three-part numbering, cross-references and signposts at the end of sections, a larger typeface and overviews and notes. We recommend that these issues are revisited and we hope that overviews, explanatory notes and signposts will be used.
I have to confess that I cannot recall being consulted about the format of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will clarify how the format was decided, and tell us whether she agrees with the suggestion that those issues be revisited.

Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly said that tax law should be readily comprehensible to an intelligent layman, and provided quotations to that effect. Does he agree that the Bill should be readily comprehensible to an intelligent outsider attending to our proceedings? Will he therefore do the House the favour of summarising in a sentence its purpose and effect?

Mr. Ottaway: I do not think that the Bill is incomprehensible. As I said, I think that it is a big improvement, although it would be inappropriate for this moment to pass without pointing out that there are those who think that it could be improved further, and that three-part numbering would be an improvement in the eyes of many.
The report discusses changing the name of the Joint Committee to illustrate a change from a Committee of simplification to a Committee that rewrites. It proposes that the Committee should be renamed the Joint Committee on tax law rewrite Bills. It is important to make the distinction between a rewrite and a simplification. There is no doubt that simplification of the law is required, and many commentators have said at some length that tax law needs improving. I recommend to those who have not had an opportunity to read it—I know that the Minister has—a paper produced by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, entitled "Towards a better tax system", which suggests how the famous, or infamous, 1R35 law could be simplified and improved.
We are now embarked on the first step of an important project—the rewriting of tax law. However, unless future Finance Acts are drafted in the rewritten style, we shall forever be going backwards: it will be two steps back and one step forward. I hope the Minister will confirm that future Acts will be so written, because otherwise it will be like painting the Forth bridge when it is rusting faster than it is being painted.
There is only one way in which what I want can be achieved. As I said on Second Reading, if resources for the tax rewrite project are increased and more staff are available, it will be possible to introduce the rewritten legislation faster than lax law is being made.
Despite what I have said, I believe that this is a successful project. It is an important step forward, and we wish the Bill a fair wind.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) reached that conclusion, because I, too, support a Bill that I consider to represent the successful outcome of a long process pursued by the House and by successive Governments.
As Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was responsible for the launch of the tax re write project. I got my just deserts a few years later, when I was persuaded by the usual channels that I should therefore take on the obligations of chairing a Joint Committee on tax simplification. As it happened, it proved to be a reasonable undertaking; there was general satisfaction that the tax rewrite project team had done its work properly. The Committee reported its satisfaction with the Bill, and said that it did not think that any matters needed to be drawn to the House's attention.
I rarely speak in support of the Minister, but I congratulate the Government on continuing the project on a truly bipartisan basis. It has taken a long time for this conclusion to be reached, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South says, there is no difference between the two sides on the desirability of making the House's intentions, and the policy that we decide on tax, as comprehensible as possible to the intelligent layman outside. That is the whole point of the undertaking.
My hon. Friend pointed out that "Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills" was probably a misnomer. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked what the "intelligent layman" would think. I see no way in which we could produce a clear and easy read on tax policy—particularly on capital allowances—for the normal educated layman.
This is a highly specialised subject. When I first announced the details of the project, in my 1996 Budget, I said that the task on which we were embarking was rather like that of turning "War and Peace" into lucid Swahili. Indeed, that would doubtless be an easy project compared with this: simplifying tax law involves addressing a more specialised audience.
Although the process has fulfilled a useful purpose, I readily acknowledge the importance of discussing it properly on Third Reading. After all, we are embarked on a novel procedure, and we must ensure that we do not remove from the House as a whole its responsibility—its sole responsibility—fo making the final judgment on tax policy and the burden of taxation as it falls on individuals and companies throughout the economy.

Mr. Hogg: What worries many Members is the possibility that substantive changes to law have occurred, rather than mere rewriting. What reassurance can my right hon. and learned Friend give that the Committee and all its members were satisfied that no substantive change in the law had been made?

It being Ten o 'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Capita' Allowances Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 309, Noes 33.

Division No. 121]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coffey, Ms Ann


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cohen, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Coleman, Iain


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Connaly, Michael


Allen, Graham
Cooper, Yvette


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Corbyn, Jeremy



Cotter, Brian


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cox, Tom


Atkins, Charlotte
Cranston, Ross


Austin, John
Crausby, David


Bailey, Adrian
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Baker, Norman
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Barnes, Harry



Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Battle, John
Dalyell Tarn


Bayley, Hugh
Darvill, Keith


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davidson, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Fit Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Denham, Rt Hon John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dobbin, Jim


Benton, Joe
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H


Berry, Roger
Doran, Frank


Betts, Clive
Drew, David


Blackman, Liz
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blizzard, Bob
Efford, Clive


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ennis, Jeff


Breed, Colin
Etherington, Bill


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Burgon, Colin
Follett, Barbara


Burnett, John
Foster Fit Hon Derek


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Galbraith, Sam



Gapes, Mike


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Cann, Jamie
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Cawsey, Ian
Gerrard, Neil


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chaytor, David
Gidley, Sandra


Clapham, Michael
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Godstiff, Roger


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Goldirg, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)





Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWilliam, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Main, Peter
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hancock, Mike
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Maxton, John


Harris, Dr Evan
Merron, Gillian


Harvey, Nick
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moore, Michael


Hendrick, Mark
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hepburn, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heppell, John
Morley, Elliot


Hesford, Stephen
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hood, Jimmy
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Hara, Eddie


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Olner, Bill


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Neill, Martin


Hurst, Alan
Öpik, Lembit


Hutton, John
Organ, Mrs Diana


Iddon, Dr Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Illsley, Eric

Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L


Jenkins, Brian
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Joyce, Eric
Quinn, Lawrie


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rendel, David


Keetch, Paul
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Kemp, Fraser



Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kidney, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rowlands, Ted


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ruane, Chris


Lammy, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Leslie, Christopher
Ryan, Ms Joan


Levitt, Tom
Salmond, Alex


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Salter, Martin


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sanders, Adrian


Linton, Martin
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Savidge, Malcolm


Lock, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Love, Andrew
Shipley, Ms Debra


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Singh, Marsha


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McIsaac, Shona



McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)






Soley, Clive
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Spellar, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tyler, Paul


Steinberg, Gerry
Tynan, Bill


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Ward, Ms claire


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wareing, Robert N


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Watts, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Webb, Steve


Stringer, Graham
White, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stunnel, Andrew
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Willis, Phil


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Woodward, Shaun


Temple-Morris, Peter
Woolas, Phil


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wray, James


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Tipping, Paddy



Trickett, Jon
Tellers for the Ayes:


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Don Touhig and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. Jim Dowd.


NOES


Ballard, Jackie
Lidington, David


Beggs, Roy
Luff, Peter


Bercow, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Ottaway, Richard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Paisley, Rev Ian


Collins, Tim
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Day, Stephen
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Ruffley, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gray, James
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hayes, John
Soames, Nicholas


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Steen, Anthony


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey




Tellers for the Noes:



Leigh, Edward
Mr. Eric Forth and


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have just cast my vote in protest against the Government's insistence that the Bill be debated at this late hour. I regret that the House's family-friendly policies do not extend to those of us who are interested in the rewrite of tax law.
I was about to answer an intervention made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who asked whether we had addressed the changes. I shall return to the matter a little later in my speech, but I want to make it clear that, although the Joint Committee scrutinised the Bill as a whole—that was our task—we concentrated on two particular issues. The first was whether the drafting was an improvement on the drafting of the existing law—whether it clarified the meaning of the law to an intelligent user of the measure. Secondly, we addressed ourselves to the changes to tax law that were, on the

instructions of the House, intended to be only minor and necessary for the clarification of that law. As the report of the Joint Committee makes clear, we were indeed so satisfied—

Mr. Ruffley: rose—

Mr. Clarke: Before my hon. Friend starts to press me on the details—he probably wants to make an urgent point on dredging allowances in his own contribution—I should like to make a little progress. Before we deal with the details and with the comments on procedure made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, I want to explain the purpose of the legislation and the task that the House asked the Join: Committee to undertake when it embarked on that entirely novel procedure.
The purpose of the legislation was to make tax law in this country more user-friendly. I shall not dwell on the origins of the process, but they go back to 1995—a time when Finance Bills were getting longer and longer, and complaints from Members of the House about the incomprehensibility of the legislation were getting louder and louder—

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is delivering an intriguing message, which is, or should be, of interest to all right hon. and hon. Members, but there is such a hubbub that I fear many of them are missing it, will you rule?

Mr. Speaker: I eau hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As long as the Speaker can hear, that is fine.

Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members at the Bar are making the quietest hubbub that I have heard for a long time No doubt their attention will be drawn when my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham speaks—[HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot wait."]
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the then Financial Secretary, and junior Treasury Ministers, I was particularly impressed by the fact that complaints about the length and incomprehensibility of Finance Bills were received not only from Members of the House but from accountants, tax lawyers and users of the legislation. They, too, said that they did not understand its drafting.
There is a fond belief that lawyers and accountants welcome complications in the law because that makes for litigation and disputes and thus a higher income for members of their professions. However, that is not my experience of the best practitioners. Hon. Members will find that the best practitioners in accountancy, at the tax Bar and generally among tax lawyers, welcome the chance to be able to advise their clients clearly about the effects of changes in tax law and about the intentions of Parliament.
By the mid-1990s, we had reached the stage of being in danger of expressing ourselves in a way that was quite incomprehensible and that caused considerable confusion for users of the legislation. When we set up the tax law rewrite project, with the aim of making the law clearer and easier to use for those who needed to do so, it received a general welcome. I shall not repeat the tributes that were made, although I am grateful to those who took up the cudgels.
It was easy to set the process in motion, but I pay a special tribute to my noble Friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, who became an enthusiast for the project, based largely on his experience as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He took on the chairmanship of the steering committee and helped to devise the procedure that the House now follows to enable the simplification to be delivered by means of a reasonable process. The procedure is based on a precedent established for a 1952 Customs and Excise measure, but we found that it had been adequately refined. I also pay tribute to the director of the project team, Mr. Neil Munro, and to his team, who put years of effort into the production of the project.
When we started the tax law rewrite project, we underestimated how long it would take. I fear that I am on record somewhere as stating that the entire Inland Revenue law would be rewritten in five years so that we could start to deal with a comprehensive body of law. More than five years later, all we have is the Capital Allowances Bill. There is far more to come; capital allowances represent the first discrete block of provisions on which the tax law project team has worked.
That leads me to deal with the process in a way that answers the understandable concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, who served on the Committee. He is a Treasury Front-Bench spokesman, and I pay tribute to him for the diligence with which he persisted in scrutinising the Bill. As he says, he was sometimes in a minority of one, but I hope that he accepts that he was treated with considerable courtesy and respect when he suggested how we should handle such matters.
My hon. Friend was in a minority of one, which shows that he was unable to persuade me that we needed to take expert evidence; nor was he able to persuade any Member of either House from any party that we needed to do so. However, that is not to say that he did not maintain a very stout argument to that effect and occupied a considerable time during our first sitting's informal and unreported proceedings—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I, too, was concerned about the fact that the proceedings were unreported. We had a discussion about that and we were enjoined to follow Select Committee. procedures.
I have never been a member of a Select Committee, although I have often been a witness before one. I am told that Select Committees frequently debate matters in private, without the presence of Hansard, and throw their proceedings open to the public when witnesses appear. The Committee persuaded me that we should follow that procedure. I can say only that, in private, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South did indeed argue at some length about whether we should have an independent outside witness, but for several reasons, he was unable to persuade any of us that that was necessary.
In my opinion, the main reason w as the very nature of the process that had been used for the previous five years. We often talk about the desirability of consulting on proposed legislation. I do not think that any measure before the House has been consulted on as copiously as the Bill. For five years, the steer ng committee and the consultative committee have conducted a long process of consulting every interested body in the country.
All the professional bodies, any practitioner who wanted to make representation,; and any interested business man were given the opportunity to respond to suggestions on how the law might be simplified. Indeed,

several draft Bills were given wider exposure and issued for consultation. They were commented on and the comments were responded to by the project team. The process was meant to be consensual and bipartisan, so the project team embarked on no serious controversy if any outside body was prepared to start to get into a ditch to resist any proposal.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend is being very generous with his time in giving way again. He has told the House that the Committee pursued practices adopted by Select Committees. He will know that Select Committees usually—perhaps always—receive advice from their advisers. In this case, why was it not thought appropriate for the Committee to have advisers to give an independent view?

Mr. Clarke: I am aware that that is the usual practice, but I do not think that there is any requirement to have an independent adviser. When I was a Minister, I was known to complain that I faced Select Committees that appeared to allow their entire reports to be written by their supposedly independent advisers. I am sure that the Minister does not agree with that at all. That practice was not always wholly desirable, but we considered it because my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South pressed us to do so.
The problem is that it would have been extremely difficult to find an outside practitioner who had not participated in the consultation process or had not had the opportunity to do so. The list of the bodies that were consulted and the committees formed by the Law Society and chartered accountancy bodies was so copious that almost every interested practitioner had plenty of time to participate. We would have had to comb the country to find someone who had not had a hand in the process.
Our only option would have been to find someone who had no interest in the subject, but who was welcome to receive the substantial fees that would, no doubt, have been required to enable a new lawyer or accountant to get up to speed on five years of work and every feature of the capital allowances tax law so that he was in a position to give us advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South will recall that it was argued that. any decent practitioner—if we could find one who was new to the process—would require months to get up to speed with the process that had ground everything exceedingly small for the previous five years, although I would not have begrudged that person those substantial fees.

Mr. John Burnett: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would have been beneficial if individuals had given evidence to the Joint Committee? They might have been consultees, but at least they would not have been members of one of the committees.

Mr. Clarke: I am not aware of anyone knocking on our door to give evidence. Any such request passed me by. The evidence showed that every relevant professional body that I had ever heard of gave universal approval for the process and the Bill. We could have put an advertisement in a few national newspapers asking whether anyone wanted to protest, but that would not have been sensible. The main pressure on the Committee was to get on with delivering the desirable simplification. It was not supposed to devise a


new procedure for Parliament which would introduce months of parliamentary delay while we tried to process a Bill that was widely welcomed by practically everyone with a serious interest in the subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South commented on the Committee's membership. We always have that discussion. He said that some people should not have been on the steering or the consultative committee. It is not the greatest advertisement for the House if we devise rules that disqualify just about every Member of either House of Parliament who has a detailed knowledge of the subject under discussion from serving on a Committee. I have the greatest respect for the Chamber and hon. Members, but it is not teeming with people who have immense expertise in the subject of capital allowances. A fresh body would not have produced the level of scrutiny that the House is entitled to expect.
There was a reasonably good spread of expertise around the Committee Room. Some members could not claim professional expertise, but they were well known and respected. For example, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is renowned for his independence and refusal to be rolled over by an establishment stitch-up.

Mr. Ruffley: We have all been enjoying my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. He will have heard that 66 minor changes were made. What were the thought processes of the Committee members when they were deciding whether a change was minor or substantive? A substantive change could not, of course, have been accepted.

Mr. Clarke: That was a key consideration, but before I deal with it, I shall dispose of the other main objective, which was to ensure that the drafting was improved. We sampled the drafting of the existing tax legislation, which is scattered over the past 10 years, and compared it with the redrafts. It is not possible to make the tax law of this country read like Enid Blyton. With the greatest respect, the Chancellor does nothing but complicate the tax law with every Budget that he produces. It will never be a simple matter. However, I congratulate Dr. Helen Caldwell and her colleagues from the parliamentary draftsman's office on the immense improvement that they have made to the wording of the legislation.
When the project was proposed, I was slightly hostile towards the parliamentary draftsman's office. Years of experience as a Minister meant that I had encountered draft legislation that I wanted to present to the House, but it was not expressed as clearly as I had wished. I developed something of an antipathy towards the drafting style of some of the people who produced that legislation. I began to believe that nobody in the parliamentary draftsman's office was familiar with the English language any more. Once, I asked outside lawyers to try to improve the drafting, and if they had charged a little less, they might have made progress.
I shall retract all those prejudices against the parliamentary draftsman's office if they can produce people like the team who worked on this Bill, who have undoubtedly transformed and greatly clarified the way in which the law is expressed. They have done a great service to all those who will use the law. That was the first

matter on which we had to satisfy ourselves. We looked at the existing law and compared it with the new text until we were satisfied that this was the dramatic rewrite in plain English which had been hoped for when the project was started.
I can reassure my lion. Friend that the second, even more important, point for me was whether the changes fitted within the definition "minor and necessary". It is a given that any changes in tax policy by any Government are subject to the control of the whole House and should go through the normal procedures of a Finance Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is not the only one who was suspicious of any suggestion that the Government might be slipping through subtle changes that might enable them to win a battle in the courts or to clarify a doubt in favour of the Inland Revenue, without the tedium of having to go through parliamentary scrutiny of a Budget speech and a Finance Bill Committee. We addressed ourselves to that point.
The 66 changes are of close particularity. My test for determining whether a change is a policy change that ought to be brought to the attention of the whole House is whether it alters the burden of taxation. Would a taxpayer who might have been capable of arguing that he was not liable to a tax burden find himself disadvantaged by being made subject to that burden by a tax simplification measure? The whole Committee concerned itself with that, and our report demonstrates that we are satisfied on that point. It is true that we examined some changes in more detail than others, but a clear principle applied throughout. Where the law had been changed, it usually amounted to a non-statutory concession, previously made by the Inland Revenue, now being incorporated into the law so as to place beyond doubt the non-liability of taxpayers for something that might previously have been argued as applying to them.
The Inland Revenue, led by a former Treasury colleague of mine, Robin Willis, and his team, had thought up rather ingenious arguments that might be made to alter the burden of taxation. As far as we could tell, those arguments had never been raised, and were unlikely to be raised unless the Inland Revenue staff in question were to move to a consultancy later in their career. Wherever possible, the team resolved questions in favour of the taxpayer.
The Committee went through the changes, using them as our agenda, and at the end, as my hon. Friend will agree, we unanimously agreed that we could find no basis on which we could tell the House that any change had been made which went against the spirit of the process. There was nothing that we felt we should draw to the attention of the House as requiring further study. We should certainly have drawn to its attention any example where we thought the burden of taxation was being shifted to the taxpayer without due parliamentary process.
Our scrutiny was careful and proper, and it took only three detailed sittings because it is extremely difficult to find anybody outside the House who is challenging the process. I am not aware that any member of the Committee was lobbied by anybody trying to argue against the process or to get a member of the Committee


to raise an objection. The process has been gone through in such detail that we have now reached a stage where the users of the legislation are waiting for it to be enacted.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham first.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a racy and intoxicating speech, but I am still trying to get a flavour of the Joint Committee. In the light of what he has just said about comprehensive consideration, will he tell the House how long the Committee sat on each of the three occasions on which it gathered under his chairmanship; and whether any of the sittings was attended and observed by any right hon. or hon. Member of this House who was not a member of the Committee?

Mr. Clarke: To the best of my recollection—I hope that I shall not be held to this without having had an opportunity to look it up—the first sitting took about half a morning, during which time we discussed the purpose of the Bill, our procedure and holt, we intended to tackle it. Then, we held two sittings with witnesses, which took two full mornings. When witnesses were present, the sitting was open to the public and we were all hoping that the public would pour through the doors and be queueing down to Central Lobby, but the level of interest appeared to be low; none the less, a small body of interested observers attended. I regret to say that, because of the pressure of business elsewhere in the House, I saw no Member of this House present at the back listening to our proceedings.
I am as suspicious as my hon. Friend. I do not take an apparent lack of opposition at face value. This evening, I have taken part in two Divisions in which I think the score in my Lobby only just reached—or did not reach—double figures, which shows that I am perfectly prepared to walk alone when the occasion requires it. However, the Committee was quite unable to find a hint of controversy in the process; all we found were people urging us to get on with the job.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend has made some play of the fact that there was no hint of controversy and no member of the Committee was able to find anything wrong with the measure it was considering. Does he not concede that that is no great surprise, given that Lord Brightman is a former member of the tax law rewrite committee, Lord Goodhart is a member of the Institute for Fiscal Studies tax law review committee, and Lord Howe of Aberavon is a chairman of the tax law rewrite committee? The Committee consisted of the same old gang getting together to congratulate each other—no wonder there was no dissent.

Mr. Clarke: The Committee was a collection of people who have a great deal of expertise in tax law and have given up hours of their time to take the process forward.

Mr. Forth: The usual suspects.

Mr. Clarke: Had I wanted to find someone to come along to oppose the measure just for the sake of it, rather

than wander around seeking the cussed Joe Citizen who would oppose it come what may, I would have consulted my right hon. Friend, who would surely have been able to find someone. In defence of the noble and learned Lords whom he has named, let me say that they are men of independent judgment who devoted a great deal of time to the task. The amendment we discussed was tabled by Lord Brightman—and the quotation my right hon. Friend read out earlier was my summation of a discussion of that specific amendment—although a variety of amendments were submitted from different quarters. In the end, the mood of the Committee was expressed by an overwhelming majority of its members: plainly, they did not want to make any amendment on the particular subject raised by Lord Brightman.
Lord Brightman, Lord Howe and the other noble Lord my right hon. Friend named are among the small minority of people who either understand the subject or are prepared to give up three mornings to the task of taking the project forward after already giving up hours and hours of their time serving on other committees that scrutinised the subject. I do not believe that any of the three would approve a process that did not simplify the law or, more importantly, one that represented any attempt to evade the privileges of the House in respect of tax legislation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not wish to traduce them in any way.
Finally, let me tell the House at whom I think this process is aimed. I have already said that the public did not flock to our proceedings, and I doubt whether many members of the public will pull the Capital Allowances Act 2001 from the shelf for a bedtime read—it will not be a best seller in that quarter. The users of such legislation will almost certainly be specialists. I hope that the intelligent layman who wants to understand the reasons why his advisers have given him certain advice will do so by reading the plain English of the legislation, but the main users of the measure will be tax professionals. They will be accountants, tax lawyers and some business men, especially the finance directors of companies, or self-employed business men who are trying to understand the tax liabilities that they might incur and the allowances for their capital against the tax liability of their businesses.
The other main users of the proposed legislation should be parliamentarians. It damages our debates on Finance Bills when most Members, with the greatest respect to them, do not understand the provisions before them because of the way they are drafted. [Interruption.] I do not want to hear shouts of horror. I listened to Budget speeches for many years, and I looked round the Chamber on those occasions. In the old days, we used to deal with intractable and unintelligible minor amendments that Customs and Excise used to insist on putting into Budget speeches. I looked to see which Members were nodding sagely to enhance their reputations as tax experts. Most of them were nodding sagely to words that they did not understand—any more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the draftsman did.
We need to move away from all that. There are definite benefits to be had in simplifying the expression of the law. Not only a closed group of Members but everybody will be able to understand the policy that lies behind tax changes. The process of simplifying the language of legislation clarifies many tax issues. It will throw out the areas that will be beyond the scope of the Joint


Committee, where policy and the law itself need simplifying. That is a matter for the House and for Budgets. The process will show in much sharper clarity where the law is too complicated. We shall be able to understand the issues, and in future the House will be able to address itself to rewriting policy to make matters less anomalous, more clear and more rational. Sometimes the language that we have used in the past has hidden that objective from the House.

Sir Robert Smith: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman offering some hope to the pensioner who was in my constituency office recently, pleading that the self-assessment form should be made intelligible so that he could complete it without the use of professional advice?

Mr. Clarke: This is not yet enough, because it is only the first part of the process. The intention is that the tax law rewrite project should include the entirety of the Inland Revenue's responsibilities. Capital allowances were chosen first because they constitute one of the most closed and self-defined chunks of the law. I believe that the project team is now working on income tax, and the next Bill of this sort to come before the House will attempt to cover the clarification and rewriting of the law on income tax.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) is right. Now that we have introduced self-assessment, it is essential that we endeavour to rewrite income tax law so that someone who has a decent degree in mathematics, and perhaps some background in accountancy, will at least be able to understand the process. I would like to set our sights higher, and I hope that the ordinary, intelligent and reasonably educated taxpayer might be able to embark on a process of understanding.
We shall never reach that position if the present Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps complicating income tax legislation at the present pace, Budget after Budget. Self-assessment would have been difficult enough when it was introduced. It has been made almost incomprehensible by the subsequent changes that the Chancellor has made, with so many different rates of taxation.
Income tax comes next. We must aim ourselves at the intelligent taxpayer who is being asked to assess himself for his income tax liability and does not feel that he should be obliged to pay professional fees to do so when he is doing so much work for the Inland Revenue.
The new procedure that we have set up works, but it needs some refining. By and large, it is a proper process. We do not want the full procedures of the House to hold things up for months. Everyone who has worked on the project over the years has fulfilled a valuable public service, and I hope that the Bill passes through the House without dissent.
The principles of the tax rewrite project and the object of simplification of legislation could be applied far more widely. Ever since I entered the House, when I was a practising member of the Bar—I practised for a time when I was last in opposition—I have felt that the language of legislation produced by the House is ridiculous. It is

arcane and incomprehensible, it adds to the complications of parliamentary procedures, and it creates great difficulties for those outside Parliament. When Ministers and Back Benchers make those points, insiders always give the advice that such people do not understand, and that the law requires precision. They say that practitioners in the courts prefer language set out in that way, so that they can conduct their affairs properly.
I have been a practitioner in the courts and practised on and off for the best part of 16 years. I know many practitioners in the courts; I am now so old that most of my friends are on the Bench. I know scarcely any practitioners who have a good word for the wording of legislation that emerges from the House. I hear frequent complaints about the incomprehensibility of the law as produced by the parliamentary process. At the moment, a huge undertaking is in hand: rewriting tax law and producing simplification. I hope that, one day, the use of plain English, the search for clarity and the ambition of making laws passed by the House intelligible to the ordinary, intelligent citizen who applies himself or herself to trying to read and understand them, will be achieved.
Meanwhile, as we go back tomorrow, no doubt, to yet another Bill to which the Government have drafted hundreds of amendments at the last moment, we shall continue to produce what is sometimes gobbledegook, but which passes for legislation and passes through both Houses. We have passed a lot of gobbledegook on tax law in the past 10 years; the Bill before us this evening clarifies some of it, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Burnett: I am sorry that you seem to be out of sorts, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you recover shortly.
I declare an interest as a lawyer. I used to practise in taxation, but I do not practise any more. I should also declare the fact that I was not a member of the Joint Committee. Nevertheless, on Second Reading, there were tributes from both sides of the House to Lord Howe of Aberavon, the tax rewrite steering committee, the consultative committee and all of the individuals who contributed, either in the past or currently, to the introduction of the Bill. I was, and am, happy to join in the tributes and congratulations to Lord Howe and his committee.
I should like to tackle a few points that arose in the Joint Committee, which have been alluded to this evening. I was surprised that, in that Committee, no evidence was taken in person from a practising tax lawyer or a non-Committee tax expert. I am not sure what steps were taken to encourage outside experts to give evidence, but it is a shame that no one did so. I refer the House to the comments of the eminent accountant, Mr. Adam Broke, who was referred to by the Paymaster General and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Mr. Broke said:
I would say that we have, as a consequence, a much better product than we did have. I say that as an accountant, not a lawyer, and I will be very interested to hear the views of lawyers on the Committee on that.
I looked long and hard in the report of Committee proceedings for the views of an independent, practising lawyer, but I could not find any.
Mr. Broke went on to make one or two particularly interesting points in his evidence. He was complimentary about the Bill and I believe that, across the House,


we share his views. Nevertheless, he made the point that the serious work of tax simplification was yet to come. He said:
I do not think we have got into the real serious areas of complexity. We have not really got into anti-avoidance yet, where, in some senses, vagueness is the order 0f the day anyway.
I hope that the Paymaster General will provide a response about the future of the tax rewrite project and what the Government have in mind to introduce in due course. Nevertheless, the Bill fulfils the tests that were set out by the tax law rewrite committee and successive Governments. Tax law is incomprehensible to most people, and overcomplicated. The tax law rewrite committee set itself the task of gradually rewriting the law on various taxes, and the Bill is the first in the rewrite project.

Mr. Redwood: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's fulsome praise. Has he, for example, read the hypothetical company test on pages 25 and 26? Is he suggesting that that is expressed with lucidity, so that a reasonable and well educated person can understand it? It looks like the old gobbledegook in a new bottle.

Mr. Burnett: I have not read every word in the Bill—I apologise to the House for that—but I have read significant parts of it. I have read sufficient to satisfy myself that it is a considerable improvement on the law that hitherto prevailed.

Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he like to hazard a guess as to the average amount of time spent by the Committee deliberating on each of the 66 minor changes?

Mr. Burnett: As I said, I was, not a member of the Committee, but I have read the three Hansard reports and I suspect that the Committee spent a total of less than 10 hours deliberating on the Bill. I am happy to give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) if he wants to correct me.
To return to what I was saying, the tax law rewrite committee's ambitions have largely been achieved, and the new Bill is considerably mote understandable. The use of plain English, with shone' sentences and clearer structure, is welcome. The explanatory notes are helpful and act, as I said on Second Reading, almost as an index.
The real problem that I experienced as a lawyer dealing with taxation matters was hunting around the various sections and statutes to find out exactly what the law was. The dovetailing and consolidation in the Bill are particularly welcome.
On Second Reading, we discussed the drawing into the Bill of various Inland Revenue concessions. That is important. When the Paymaster General intervened in my speech on Second Reading, she mentioned that a number of concessions remain unincorporated in primary legislation. I hope that that will be remedied soon, because although Inland Revenue concessions and, for that matter, statements of practice do not have legislative force, they must be relied on by taxpayers and their advisers.

Mr. Hogg: There is, of course, a problem, which I think the hon. Gentleman would admit: if, in the process of rewriting, extra-statutory concessions are incorporated

into statutory language, a substantive change to the law takes place without the authority of Parliament. That has, in fact, happened in this case.

Mr. Burnett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good point. He anticipates what I am about to say. Taxpayers deserve certainty and should not have to put up with rules that are not laws passed by the House. That is extremely important. With regard to the effect of concessions on the law, concessions were largely an explanation of existing law and do not make a substantial or even a small change in the underlying law.

Mr. Redwood: I am sorry to return to the matter, but the hon. Gentleman said that he admired the shorter sentences in the Bill. I wonder whether he has read it. The hypothetical company test to which I referred has 84 words in its first sentence, and that is by no means the longest one. I recommend to him the definition of the limit on amount deferred—clause 138—which is probably twice the length. He ought to read the Bill.

Mr. Burnett: As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman, who is welcome to look at my copy of the will—[Laughter.] I almost had to redraft my will. If he looks at my copy of the Bill, he will see that it is fairly well thumbed. If he has scrutinised at length the Capital Allowances Act 1990 and the numerous Finance Acts that impact on capital allowances, and if he has even a scintilla or a basic modicum of knowledge, he will know that the Bill is infinitely better than the law that now prevails.
After the tax law rewrite committee's report was published, the Select Committee on Procedure conducted an inquiry into the appropriate parliamentary procedures for tax simplification legislation. The tax law rewrite committee stated that the purpose of debating such legislation was to discuss
the clarity of the law, and whether further improvements could be made to that end; and whether or not the Bill accurately reproduces the effect of the existing law, other than where (with a view to simplification) departures are intentional, as disclosed by the explanatory memorandum.
There was consensus that it was appropriate that policy in general should not be debated.
The Procedure Committee's report stated, however, that
such a debate would be likely to be largely"—
I emphasise the word "largely"—

technical and 'Policy free'.
The debate would not, therefore, be entirely technical and policy free, but would be largely so.
With that in mind, I should like to raise one or two issues that relate to simplification and that should therefore be considered and debated now. First, I hope that all hon. Members agree that deeming provisions should be avoided in legislation. Unfortunately, although the Bill is by and large successful, deeming provisions continue to be used. On Second Reading, I referred to clause 297(2), which states:
This Part has effect in relation to the person to whom the relevant interest is sold as if—".
The provision goes on to define the relevant expenditure, writing-down allowances and appropriate balancing


adjustment. However, it is important for clauses in tax law simplification Bills to say what happens in exact circumstances. They must deal with the tax effect in given circumstances, not pretend that something has happened and then provide for the tax consequences.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burnett: No, not at the moment.
Such an approach over-complicates and obscures tax law. I hope that future Bills will avoid the use of deeming provisions.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Burnett: No, I shall not do so for the moment.
Secondly, it is important to simplify the law. The last three Finance Bills—I had the mixed fortune of serving on the Standing Committees that considered the last two—have introduced countless extra complications and numerous tax rates. It is asking enough of the rewrite committee to give it the task of rewriting the plethora of existing legislation and dovetailing it into a specific Act. The Government must now resist the temptation to tinker gratuitously with the tax system and make it more and more complicated.
The Government could help the rewrite committee and taxpayers by altering the impact of balancing charges, especially for the small business sector. The balancing charge impacts on the taxpayer in one hit, whereas the allowance is made on a reducing-balance basis and, at best, takes seven or eight years to write out the cost of the asset. Surely the Revenue should not be treated considerably more favourably than the taxpayer and there should be some equity in the law between the two.
I hope that the Paymaster General will make it clear that, once a rewrite Bill has been enacted, future legislation—in this case, capital allowances legislation—will be drafted in the same helpful and comprehensive manner, on the basis of fitting into the existing rewritten form. It would be a complete waste of time and effort if future legislation reverted to type. There would be a mismatch: some legislation would be rewritten, but the remainder would be in the almost incomprehensible language that currently prevails.
As I have said several times, the Bill and the explanatory notes are welcome. I hope that, in due course, tax law will be capable of being understood by a reasonably intelligent person who is prepared to devote a reasonable amount of time to the task. The Bill's chief merits include dovetailing legislation into one measure and reordering legislation. The latter is especially helpful.
In a House of Lords debate on the taxation of chargeable gains, no less a legal authority than Lord Wilberforce said:
This legislation is of unimaginable complexity. It is absolutely impossible for the ordinary citizen to understand. It is impossible for many accountants to understand. Indeed, as I know from personal experience, it is also impossible for the officials of the Inland Revenue to understand."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 1992; Vol. 534, c. 119.]
I look forward to learning from the Paymaster General the next Act that is to be rewritten and when it will be considered in the House.

Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register. The Bill demonstrates that if we begin with muddled, complicated, difficult and detailed legislation, no amount of rewriting can make it simple, straightforward and easy to comprehend. I have every sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who chaired the Joint Committee and tried to respond to well intentioned proposals.
However, the Government have missed a great opportunity. If they were serious about simplifying the capital allowance rules, they should have been bolder, changed the rules more dramatically, introduced new policy and attendant legislation and encouraged proper debate on methods of genuinely simplifying legislation that had grown like Topsy over many years under successive Governments and is now out of control.
The Paymaster General invites us to believe that a Bill with 581 clauses and four schedules is an easy read. It may not be Enid Blyton—to echo the vivid speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—but the Paymaster General tries to persuade us that the measure is sufficiently lucid for ordinary people to read, digest and understand, and remain undeterred by its enormous bulk. It contributes to understanding only part of the way in which corporate tax works in this country It does not relate to the biggest part of our tax system in terms of the revenue raised or the impact on the daily life of British people. It takes 333 pages to establish the sort of allowances companies can try to offset against corporation tax liability. Yet the Paymaster General tells us without a hint of irony, humour or malice that she is proud of an effort that she perceives as an enormous simplification, which should make us leap for joy.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was executive director of a couple of companies. What would I think if I was now in that position and had to respond to the Bill, if it receives Royal Assent? Would I be grateful? Would I sit in my office and exclaim, "This is wonderful—the House of Commons has at last done something to make my life easier. I now have only 333 new pages to read and all will be clear about gaining capital allowances for my company's investment"? I fear that that would not be my reaction. I would perceive the Bill as a confounded nuisance. I would already have approached tax lawyers and accountants to take advice on the impact of existing tax law on those businesses. I would have paid the fees, made the calculations, and 1 would know where I stood. I would then have to repeat the process because the Bill makes 66 detailed changes.
My generous right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe assures us that the changes try to ease the burden on taxpayers and give the benefit of the doubt where doubt previously existed. That is a very worthy idea. However, the companies that 1 am describing would still—in their own interest—have to go back to their tax lawyers and accountants to find out whether they were beneficiaries of any of those 66 changes. Were they not to benefit from them, they would have succeeded only in spending a lot more money on legal advice, tax advice and accountancy advice for no benefit, because they would not have scraped through into any of the new improved arrangements.
When we consider the Bill in more detail, I fear that we may also find examples in which lawyers and accountants will be able to cavil that the changes have not always gone in the direction of the taxpayer. The House must scrutinise that matter carefully.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I have been following my right hon. Friend's argument with interest. I have, perhaps more recently, been involved in such a position in corporate life. When the crystal mark was introduced to simplify the language of many corporate documents, I found it notable that although the mark was intended to simplify, the company also had to pay further fees to have the documents properly interpreted because they used different words that could have been taken to have different meanings. Is not the best way of simplifying any law to have less law?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the former company secretary of an important British multinational group, he speaks from considerable experience. Voluminous legislation such as this, however well intentioned, will always impose new costs and duties on well run businesses. They must keep up with the change of words, determine whether the change of meaning will have any impact, arid ensure that there is nothing untoward in the way in which they are handling their affairs once the law has, effectively, changed.

Mr. Hogg: I often agree with my right hon. Friend. However, he seems to be advancing an argument against any attempt to rewrite or simplify statutory language. I find that a difficult conclusion to accept.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely powerful point. Perish the thought that I should advance such an argument. However, as I said earlier, I would like the Government to achieve their aim by simplifying the thinking behind the legislation that they have introduced or inherited. I would then like them to introduce more radical proposals—which would cut down the number of pages dramatically—and deliberately change the law to make it easier and cheaper in its incidence by being more in favour of the taxpayer than the minor, but sometimes important, changes that we are considering tonight.
We have also heard from some hon. Members, particularly from the Liberal Bench that they are full of admiration for the much simpler, clearer language, and the shorter sentences. I referred to the hypothetical company test on pages 25 to 26 of the Bill. That is by no means the most confused or difficult part of the Bill; I have not selected the worst example, by any means. I would like the House to get the feel of this proposal, because I am not sure that all hon. Members are as fully acquainted with it as might be useful for the purposes of these debates. Clause 48(5) states:
To apply the hypothetical company test, assume that—

(a) the qualifying activity is carried oil by a company ("the hypothetical company"),
(b) every trade, business, profession or vocation carried on by the business is carried on by the business as part of that activity,
(c) the financial years of the hypothetical company would coincide with the chargeable periods of the business, and
(d) accounts of the hypothetical company for any relevant chargeable period have been duly drawn up as if that period were a financial year of the company."

That is the end of the first sentence. To make matters crystal clear, clause 48(6) states:
The business passes the hypothetical company test as a small or medium-sized company in relation to the expenditure in question if, on the assumptions in subsection (5), the company would qualify (or be treated as qualifying) as small or medium-sized under the relevant companies legislation in relation to the financial year in which the expenditure is assumed to be incurred.
The clause then goes on at considerable length.
A good, trained accountant who was well versed in company law would probably be able to work that proposal out, but I do not think that one immediately gets the gist of the test from reading the Bill. Clause 48(5) is certainly not a short sentence, and it is a very complicated one. The underlying thought is even more complicated because it deals with hypothetical companies in the test, not with actual companies.

Mr. Bercow: Why is it necessary and desirable—I do not say that it is not; I merely ask the question—to distinguish between qualifying and being treated as qualifying?

Mr. Redwood: That is an extremely good question. I am sure that the Minister will be desperate to respond to that and many other vital points, but I do not think that it is for me to reply to my hon. Friend. I am attacking the formula: I would not have phrased it in the same way, and I do not regard myself as being responsible for it in any sense.
There are many other examples, although I shall not bore the House by citing others or, indeed, by identifying the worst.

Mr. Keith Darvill: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I detect some interest in what I am saying. I give way.

Mr. Darvill: Indeed, I have listened closely to what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. Did he choose to make the same observations here when his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) proposed the project in 1996?

Mr. Redwood: I did not catch the Speaker's eye at the time, but under my right hon. and learned Friend I had greater hopes of the project than would be justified under the present Government. I am sure that, were he still Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend would be going in for rather more of the kind of tax simplification in which I believe, and in which I think my hon. Friends believe. It involves simplifying the underlying thoughts and, above all, reducing the incidence of taxation. The simplification that people want involves a cut in their tax bills, and fewer difficult taxes to compute in the first place.
If we examine the Bill's structure, we see why it has ended up so confusing and long-winded. Over the years, our capital allowances system has grown like Topsy, having been changed year after year. No doubt that was done for good reasons, but as a result it is now very confusing and complicated. As the rather good explanatory notes make clear, there is no simple investment allowance: we have to distinguish between different types of allowance.
Part II deals with plant and machinery allowances. Part III deals with industrial buildings allowances. Part IV deals with agricultural buildings allowances, which are treated differently from industrial buildings allowances and involve different language. In many cases, it is becoming difficult to distinguish an industrial building from an agricultural building. More and more farmers who are being bankrupted by the common agricultural policy, and by the Government's policies generally, are having to turn to quasi-industrial processes to try to add value to the commodities that they are producing.
There is a mineral extraction allowance, which is different again. It relates to industries such as mining and oil. Careful distinctions must be made between that allowance and the general plant and machinery allowance—which is not always easy, as anyone with any acquaintance with the oil industry will understand.
There are research and development allowances. They are different from know-how allowances, which have yet another definition. There are patent allowances, which are different from know-how allowances and, indeed, from the research and development allowances that may have helped to generate the patent in the first place. There are dredging allowances, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was keen should be debated properly this evening. I live in hope, and I note that other Conservative Members feel the same about these important matters. There are assured tenancy allowances, and there is the question of contributions—another aspect of tackling the difficult problem of capital allowances.
Given provision for nine types of allowance, and consequential provision for contributions and other matters, it is no wonder that the Bill has ended up with 333 pages. When the Minister and her boss the Chancellor were considering the project, why did they not ask themselves whether they should be a little bolder? I wonder why it did not occur to them—rather than asking people to devote a large part of their lives to turning extremely lugubrious prose into prose that some consider a little less lugubrious and others deem just as lugubrious in a different way—to ask, "Do we really need these nine different types of allowance? Could there not be just one or two types treated in a similar way, to avoid all the definitional difficulties and niceties involved in trying to split hairs over whether an allowance is a know-how or an R and D allowance—or, if the oil industry is involved, whether an investment is a mineral extraction or a plant and machinery investment, dealt with by a different part of the legislation?"
I should like to know why the Minister and her colleagues did not consider trying to be bolder and perhaps change the structure on which we base capital allowances. If they had done so, we could have cut through an awful lot of the complexity in the legislation.
It is important also, in what time is allowed us in these important debates, to make a stab at considering the issues on which the Committee had to deliberate by sampling and taking evidence—namely, on whether the 66 changes made in the Bill are within the spirit of the outlined process and procedure. We know that the idea behind the process was that the changes should be only minor. We have also heard the very interesting elucidation that the


Committee decided—therefore, the Government must have decided before the Committee—that when changes were being made, they should move in the direction of the taxpayer.
Of course I welcome that. As I said, I would far rather that the Government introduced bold legislation that moved much further, and in all types of ways and in all types of cases, in the direction of the taxpayer. However, one or more of the 66 changes could also disadvantage particular taxpayers. It could be that a company has just spent a lot of money on organising its affairs in a certain manner on the basis of the law before it was changed, only to discover that it had got it wrong and that it would have been better off organising its affairs in a different manner to take advantage of one of the 66 changes. One would therefore not want the process to be used for making changes, as it is not being publicly announced and advertised as Budget changes are advertised.
Our Budget process has a lot of showmanship and many critics, but its one good advantage is that it receives enormous publicity when the tax changes are being made, so that everyone, in business and elsewhere, is alerted to them. People's attention is drawn to the Budget, and they know that there is a Finance Bill and that they have to make proper inquiries and ensure that they have kept up with the changes.

Dawn Primarolo: he right hon. Gentleman has been informed on Second Reading, in my speech today and in the very full comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), that the changes are extra-statutory concessions. They are published and taxpayers are already aware of them. One point that the Committee had to deal with was that, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman has just given, the tax law rewrite process will result in no changes in the law. The process is not a Budget. Changes to basic, underlying policy can be made only in Finance Bills, with the appropriate announcements and information that they entail, and not in a tax law rewrite process. Moreover, the process was established before the previous general election by the previous Conservative Government, of whom he was a member. We have merely implemented that process.

Mr. Redwood: Although I am very grateful to the Minister, I am not entirely reassured. My point is not that she has failed to inform the House. She has been very courteous, devoted time and provided much documentation to accompany her remarks to ensuring that the House is aware of the changes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has been his usual courteous and fulsome self in explaining them as well. However, I doubt whether our proceedings today or on Second Reading will be widely reported. My point is that a Budget by its very nature attracts enormous press and publicity which are followed up when the Finance Bill detail is seen.

Dawn Primarolo: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: I should like first to finish my point.
The right hon. Lady is quite right that well informed people—tax lawyers and advisers—will be aware of the non-statutory concessions that have been made. However,


they have a stronger status now that they are being confirmed. There are 66 changes, so why are not the Government being bolder about telling the business community about them? The changes could have an impact on people's businesses.

Dawn Primarolo: When each exposure draft was released, it was accompanied by a press release. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill show that the information was published and that all the relevant organisations were notified. They were given every opportunity to comment on the draft, and changes in the draft were pointed out to them. They were asked if they saw any problems at all with the Bill—that is, whether it changed the law or clouded the interpretation of the law in a way that would put the taxpayer at a disadvantage.

Mr. Redwood: Again, it comes as no surprise that the Minister has behaved properly—unlike many other Ministers in the Government—and that she has gone through due process. I only wish that her colleagues in other Departments would do as much. I am delighted to hear what she has to say, but my point is that the publicity, hubbub and interest generated by a Budget will not be aroused by the changes contained in the Bill. If the Bill is enacted, the Minister may have to take further action to ensure that people are aware of the changes—people who are not consultees and do not belong to the professional bodies, but who run businesses and will be affected by them.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend seems to have got the impression—probably from what I said—that the Committee was not averse to accepting changes that would effect a substantial benefit for taxpayers rather than the Treasury. That was not the test that we applied. The test that we were enjoined to apply under the procedures laid down by the Select Committee on Procedure was whether the changes were minor arid necessary. Had we found that any of the changes wet e of substantial benefit to a group of taxpayers, we would almost certainly have decided that the matter was one for the whole House and that it should be referred back to Parliament as a whole.
The 66 changes are minor. Questions were asked about whether the shift in the burden could be quantified. In almost all cases, it was impossible to quantify the shift in the burden as the practical effect was so insignificant. For example, we referred details of the relevant changes to the oil industry. The industry went over them, and its response was totally relaxed, as the changes were considered to be insignificant.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that clarification. I think that I had understood that the Committee, quite properly, tried to avoid any material change in tax legislation. I had thought that he said that, where a change of a minor nature was being made, the Committee had tried to ensure that it was in favour of the taxpayer. That was the case with the extra-statutory concessions on which the Minister implied that all the changes are based.
I offer no criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend or his Committee. I merely want to make the point to the Minister that a difficult dividing line is being drawn?between a change that is made with all the publicity and hubbub attendant on a Budget, and one that is made as a

result of what has happened in case law. I think that the Minister would be well advised to ensure that not only are the special advisers and consultees involved, but the wider business community is alerted to what is going on.
For example, the explanatory notes state in connection with the demolition costs covered in clause 26(1)(b), that section 61 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990
applies where any plant or machinery 'which is in use for the purposes of the trade' is demolished. On its literal reading, this would appear to exclude the beneficial treatment of demolition costs where the person has ceased to use the plant or machinery before the demolition occurs.
In contrast, clause 26 applies where 'the last use of the plant or machinery was for the purposes of trade'. So there is no risk of taxpayers being excluded from the beneficial treatment of demolition under this clause, because the plant or machinery has ceased to be in use at the time when the demolition occurs.
That is an extremely helpful change. It will clearly benefit some taxpayers who previously were not benefiting or who had to benefit under an extra-statutory concession and might not have been aware of it or claimed it in the right way.
I would like to feel that as there are people outside who will benefit from this change, the Minister will take action to tell them. The Government are always keen to explain new schemes and new sums of money that they are spending. Should they not also be keen to say that, in this minor but important way, the legislation provides a beneficial change for a few businesses?

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who is getting worried.

Mr. Bercow: I am indeed getting worried, and would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could reassure me. Does he agree that whereas one could probably safely take it for granted that most large businesses affected one way or another by the change would be aware of it because of their extensive in-house resources and access to professional advice, small businesses might not be? As they constitute 99.6 per cent. of British businesses, employ 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and produce two fifths of the national output, should they not be told?

Mr. Redwood: I thought that my hon. Friend was getting worried because I was highlighting a small benefit from the Government. It is most unusual to find the Government providing a benefit, and perhaps I was too generous. However, I am delighted with my hon. Friend's intervention. He identifies the bulk of the business community that could not be expected to retain tax lawyers, read the latest exposure drafts or be in contact with the grand consultees to whom the Government go on these matters. Yet those are exactly the types of businesses that might be affected by the legislation.
Such businesses have to be even more careful because the legislation has an impact on whether a business is deemed to be small or medium-sized for the purpose of entitlement to a first year allowance. That is an important question because there is a different regime, depending on the size of the company. The argument is set out—with great clarity and in exemplary prose, according to Liberal Democrat Members, I am sure—on pages 5 and 6 of the explanatory memorandum. It says:


Subsections (8) and (9) of clause 48 correct small anomalies in the way that legislation relating to companies is referred to in connection with first-year allowances for small or medium-sized enterprises.
It goes on to say that the sections of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 on which the clause is based
deal both with small or medium-sized companies and with small or medium-sized 'businesses'. In this context, 'business' means individuals, partnerships consisting of individuals and so on—people or entities which are not companies.
The explanatory memorandum goes on to try and cut through this complicated Gordian knot. There is an added complication in the case of Northern Ireland, where companies registered and formed were treated differently under the 1990 Act.
I do not want to bore the House, but I hope that I have shown that there are a number of changes—66 in all—that will definitely impact on the tax liability of a number of businesses and people. That is, after all, why they are flagged up as changes. The Government assure us that these are sufficiently minor not to warrant finance legislation. I do not quibble with that, but I think that the Minister owes us an explanation. Given that there will be changes that will have an impact on business, how will she make up for the publicity deficit which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe says, seems to have dogged this important legislation throughout its passage so far?
I think that we deserve an answer explaining why Ministers are so reluctant to be rather more radical and enterprising and understand that the reason that so much gobbledegook is left in the Bill, even after these fine, learned accounting brains have been applied to it, is because the underlying complexity of the law is inherent in it. We have to sort it out not by rewriting it, but by substantial amendment or, even better, substantial repeal.
We cannot have a simple capital allowance regime with nine types of capital allowance. We cannot have a simple regime if we have different definitions of small, medium and large enterprises and they are treated differently. We cannot have a simple regime if businesses are different from enterprises and companies. We cannot have a simple capital allowance regime if we have calculations and computations on complicated formulae. I have not troubled the House with those, but there are many in the Bill, and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may wish to mention them if time permits and they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A great deal of time, money and energy has been spent on the measure, but I should be surprised if it was welcomed by the business community. Many business people will be worried that they have to wade through a further 333 pages of tax legislation that might then all be changed in a few weeks by the Budget. The measure will result in more cost, more regulation and more difficulty rather than the simplification that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe so wisely wanted. That is not being delivered by the Government and the Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth: Before I get into the meat of the Bill, I want to take an approach slightly different from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), by looking at the first report of the Joint Committee. That report is quite revealing—perhaps more so than the participants might have wished. It began, helpfully, by stating the declaration of interest of those involved. We were led to believe that the Joint Committee of both Houses would be a useful exercise, and that it would carry out substantial work on our behalf expertly and eruditely. My heart rose somewhat when I read not only that, mercifully, several of its members had considerable involvement in the real world, but that a number of them had already been involved up to their armpits in the whole tax law rewrite venture.
In considering the value of the work that has been done, our first judgment must be whether we believe that the fact that the Committee was substantially populated by people who had already been involved in the exercise was a plus, in the sense that their expertise or experience were being brought to bear on the matter, or a minus, because they were already so committed to the project that they would be unable or unlikely to bring an impartial and fresh eye to their work on the Committee. We should at least pause to consider that question. The report notes that three of the Committee members, Lords Brightman, Goodhart and Howe, had previously been involved in the tax law rewrite exercise, so presumably they could not reasonably be expected to bring a fresh mind to bear on the matter.
Whether Members of this House were able to do that is another matter. The Paymaster General has an honourable and proper position—albeit hardly impartial—on the subject. It would appear that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was rather isolated in his desire to bring a fresh mind to the matter—or, indeed, to introduce anyone else with a fresh mind. He seems largely to have been denied in that endeavour, which must heighten our suspicions.
All that is bad enough. However, we might have thought that if the Committee was to do any substantial work, it might have made some alteration to the documentation that it was offered. I read the proceedings of the Committee to try get into the minds of its members—to understand their approach to the matter. During its proceedings on 31 January 2000, the Chairman said:
I think we ought to be clear on the procedure. Without taking advice, I am not sure.
He was commendably honest, as ever—as we expect our Chairmen to be. He continued:
I would be very surprised if we could amend the Bill.
Straight away, a glimmer of suspicion enters my mind: what on earth is the point of the Joint Committee sitting if, right at the beginning of its meeting, the Chairman says that he would be very surprised if they could amend the Bill? If the Committee is taking that position, under the guidance of its Chairman, at the outset, why have we asked it to undertake that work on our behalf?
The Chairman then went on to talk about how difficult it would be to make amendments, saying:
If they are taken after 10 o'clock they would be subject to the new-style votes, no doubt.


He was probably referring to our ghastly deferred Division procedure, which has made such a farce of our proceedings. He then said:
We are making up procedure as we go along, but I cannot believe that we shall be allowed to set a precedent where we can amend a Bill without it going back to the Floor of the House.
I begin to wonder whether there was a suggestion that if the Committee decided that it needed to amend the Bill, it might have had to return to the Floor of the House, where we might have had an opportunity to consider it further in a substantial way. I therefore wonder whether the Committee had a wholehearted commitment to give the Bill proper scrutiny, and whether it had the freedom to amend it if it felt constrained in that way from the start.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is most untypical of my right hon. Friend to be deficient in his reading or to misquote in quite that way. The point of the words that he quotes was that I would have been surprised if the Committee could amend the Bill without the amendment going back to the Floor of the House. I was expressing the opinion that nothing could be done to change the Bill in Committee that would avoid debate on the Floor of the House. He suggests that I was arguing that we could not amend the Bill at all, which, as I am sure he will agree, must be an entirely accidental misreading of the purport of my remarks.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for helping me, but the thrust of what is said later in that paragraph at the very least gives the impression that the Committee would want to avoid doing anything that would cause the Bill to return to the Floor of the House.

Mr. Clarke: I strongly dispute that interpretation; the opposite point was plainly being made.

Mr. Forth: I am delighted to hear that confirmation, because it shows that the Committee felt entirely free to make any amendment that it thought necessary, but that it did not think it necessary to make any. So we obviously need to probe much further to find out why that was the case.

Mr. Clarke: At last we reach agreement, but for the avoidance of doubt, I should say that the Committee felt perfectly free to make any amendment that it wished; we insisted that we were entitled to do so. We were clear that any amendment that we made would have to be debated on the Floor of the House, which could revise it. After considered discussion, we concluded that we wished to make no amendment.

Mr. Forth: That is extremely reassuring. We have been told over and over again that 66 allegedly minor changes—I shall return to the word "minor" later—had been identified, so we might have expected the Committee to have spent some time considering them.

Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend accept, moreover, that the consequence of the decision not to amend the Bill in Committee is that only four Members of this House had the opportunity to consider it in detail? The absence of amendments means that the House did not debate the Bill on Report.

Mr. Forth: That is the case.
Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe can help me on another matter. On page 47, he is reported as having said:
As we are a Select Committee I do not want to take a vote unless we have to, but can Members of the Committee indicate if they agree that we should make no amendment whatever?".
On a simple reading, without understanding the subtleties of thought involved in the Committee's deliberations, that again suggests that the Committee set out with the determination not make any amendments.

Mr. Clarke: With respect, my right hon. Friend would agree that a simple and careful reading would reveal that the remark he quotes relates to amendments on the particular topic then being raised by Lord Brightman. There was no inhibition about proposing other amendments. The fact is that no member of the Committee was in favour of any amendment, and no outside body suggested any amendment to us; nor, so far as I am aware, has any hon. Member done so during the years of consultation that took place to produce the Bill.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend is fond of saying that, but surely this is the point at which the House would have had an opportunity to consider the matter properly, but for the fact that the Joint Committee chose not to make any amendment so that, procedurally, the Bill could zip through without touching the sides, to confront us now, when the House has no chance to make any amendment.

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend and I are great reactionaries concerning the procedures of the House, which shows that we are jealous of its privileges. Surely he will concede that we never debate any Bill on Report if the Standing Committee that considered it made no amendment.

Mr. Forth: Exactly, and we find ourselves in an invidious position. My right hon. and learned Friend may be aware that I argued against the Joint Committee, and my suspicions are being fully confirmed. It has seen fit to make no amendment to such a large Bill, and that has denied Members who were not on it the opportunity to have an input.

Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the House approved a Government motion to discharge the Committee of the whole House from considering the Bill? If that had not been approved, presumably the Bill would still be in the charge of a Committee of the whole House and, in theory, amendments could be made.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be discussing procedure.

Mr. Forth: I am delighted by your nudge, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having got rid of the little preliminaries, I can get on to the meat of the Bill.
The problem with the project is that it is all smoke and mirrors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham hinted at that. My brief perusal of the Bill has confirmed my suspicion that we have not got very far.

Mr. Bercow: We are being invited to pronounce our verdict and to decide whether to give the Bill a Third


Reading. How can we be confident that the decision not to table amendments was reached by members of the Joint Committee after a thorough consideration of the Bill's contents when, sadly, three of its members who hail from this House have been unable to be present for our deliberations?

Mr. Forth: I greatly regret the fact that key Committee members have not felt it necessary to guide us tonight. We have received guidance from the Chairman, which was most welcome, and the Minister will no doubt guide us further. In the meantime, we are having to engage in much unguided speculation, which simply lengthens our proceedings.

Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when we appointed the Committee members a few weeks ago, only one prospective candidate was in the Chamber when the nominations were made?

Mr. Forth: There seems to have been a rather casual attitude throughout our proceedings. I was going to analyse the attendance of Committee members, but I decided not to embarrass them.
I shall now deal with the Bill itself; you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is in my hands. I have annotated it so that I can guide myself and the House through it.

Mr. Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend proposing a new rule of procedure to ensure that anyone who is nominated to a Standing Committee is in the Chamber when nominated? If so, would it ever be possible to man a Standing Committee on a major Bill?

Mr. Forth: I am not proposing that, but it might be beneficial to the House if only those people who showed a sufficient interest in Bills were appointed to Standing Committees, so that they were not composed of the usual zombies—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman about parliamentary language.

Mr. Forth: Perhaps I should have said robots. I would not dream of calling any hon. Member, irrespective of his party, a zombie. However, I want to get on with debating the Bill and shall not be led astray any further by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
There have been several references to "minor changes". That concept has bedevilled our deliberations. "Minor" is a subjective word at best. As the Chairman explained, it was a prime consideration of the Committee to determine what was a minor change. The magic figure of 66 minor changes has been mentioned. We have not got to the bottom of the question of whether the Committee considered in detail each of the minor changes, satisfied itself that they were minor, and then decided to approve them without amendment. We can assume that it probably did. I remain worried, however, about whether that formed part of the Committee's deliberations.
That worry increased when I considered the wording used in the Bill, which was unamended by the Committee. We must therefore assume that the wording has the

Committee's approval, and that it saw no need to amend it. My eye first lit on clause 33, headed "Personal security", which says:
This section applies to expenditure if … it is incurred by an individual or partnership of individuals in connection with the provision for, or for use by, the individual, or any of the individuals, of a security asset".
I wonder whether that form of words is remotely detailed or specific enough to help those who seek to interpret it. It involves the use of terms such as "in connection with", "any of the individuals" and "of a security asset" in one sentence, and I should have thought that any of those terms could reasonably give rise to doubt. Given that the whole point is supposed to be simplification, and that it was stressed earlier that all the experts have considered the Bill at great length and pronounced themselves satisfied, I wonder whether they have done the job properly.
My suspicion grew when I read clause 45, headed "ICT expenditure incurred by small enterprises". That starts rather encouragingly by saying:
Expenditure is first-year qualifying expenditure if … it is incurred on or before 31st March 2003".
I should have thought that one could be reasonably satisfied that that is specific and definite and could therefore be relied on by those who look to the Bill for guidance on capital allowances. The clause then plunges into uncertainty, however, because it says that expenditure is first-year qualifying expenditure if
it is incurred by a small enterprise".
Let us give the Bill the benefit of the doubt and say that small enterprises are adequately defined in prior statute.
The Bill goes on to say that expenditure qualifies if
it is expenditure on information and communications technology, and … is not excluded by section 46 (general exclusions)".
It continues:
'Expenditure on information and communications technology' means expenditure on items within any of the following classes.
One assumes that the Bill will now give sufficient information to put the matter beyond doubt. It says that the first class covers computers.
At this point, doubts start to arise in my mind. I confess straight away that I am not a computer expert, nerd or anorak. I do not use a computer; indeed, I do not know how to use one. Even I should have thought, however, that simply to say that the first class covers computers can hardly, in this day and age, be sufficient. I imagine that the term now covers state-of-the-art, hand-held telephones with an internet capability, hand-held computers that are not telephones, and also any other device that is capable of computing. That encompasses a wide range of equipment.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I have been following my right hon. Friend's argument, and although of course it carries the force of logic and eloquence, as ever, I find it confusing that he seems to be arguing for greater detail. As we are dealing with a simplification Bill, surely he should be seeking a change in the other direction.

Mr. Forth: I am afraid that I have to disagree with my hon. Friend, because simplification, in tax matters above all things, does not mean reducing phrases to one word, which could have a variety of interpretations.

Mr. David Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill's objective


is not simplification as he has described it, but clarification and codification, which makes legislation more acceptable to practitioners, businesses and other interested individuals, and that his remarks are misguided in that respect?

Mr. Forth: I do not believe so. The whole purpose of the exercise was alleged to be tax simplification; that is what the Joint Committee—indeed, the whole exercise—was supposed to be about. Therefore, that is what I am looking for in the Bill and why my search has been so frustrating.

Mr. Bercow: There is a real problem. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) has contributed to the debate, apparently without having had sight of the relevant material. My right hon. Friend was a bit soft on him, but does he not think it unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman is unaware that he has only to look at the cover of the first report to see that the name of the Committee is the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills—not codification, but simplification?

Mr. Forth: Yes, the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire appears to have wandered into the Chamber unarmed with any documentation, so he was presumably guessing when he intervened. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing that guidance to the hon. Gentleman, who might want to go to the Vote Office and arm himself before he intervenes again.
Moving on swiftly, as is my wont, I turn to clause 81, which is headed "Extended meaning of 'car'" and states:
In this Part "car" means a mechanically propelled road vehicle other than one—

(a) of a construction primarily suited for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description, or
(b) of a type not commonly used as a private vehicle and unsuitable for such use.
I do not know much about computers, but I do know a little bit about cars. Contemplating categories that include sports utility vehicles, the vehicle known in the United States as a pick-up truck, and all the other varieties of vehicle in between, which might have an open rear part for carrying goods, but a cabin designed to carry a number of people, or be a four-wheel drive vehicle designed primarily for off-road purposes but also able to carry heavy burdens, causes me to wonder whether the description provides sufficiently flexible coverage of the range of vehicles known generally or generically as "car" to serve as any useful guide in the matter of capital allowances.
Confusingly, the clause then states:
References to a car accordingly include a motor cycle.
If that is the fruit of the work of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on tax simplification, I despair. I begin to have great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who uttered a cry of frustration when speaking about the Bill. I suspect that he had nightmares about clause 81 after reading it, and well might it cause him to wonder why he spent all that time—well, not much time at all, as it turns out—in the Committee during its deliberations.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend has passed over the preceding clause. Did he find clause 80 easy to understand? I found the calculation of the final chargeable

period especially difficult under the formula therein. Would my right hon. Friend care to alert the House to the fact that
(AQE?TDR) x A/B
is not a terribly lucid explanation of how one goes about calculating one's balancing allowance as an employee? I pity the poor employee who has to use that formula.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend would be right, were it not for the fact that, helpfully, the clause goes on to define—

Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 31.

Division No. 122]
[11.53 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Ainger, Nick



Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Darvill, Keith



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davidson, Ian


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Atkins, Charlotte



Austin, John
Denham, Rt Hon John


Bailey, Adrian
Dobbin, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H


Battle, John
Doran, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Drew, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benton, Joe
Efford, Clive


Bermingham, Gerald
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Berry, Roger
Ennis, Jeff


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Flynn, Paul


Bradshaw, Ben
Follett, Barbara


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Browne, Desmond
Foulkes, George


Buck, Ms Karen
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Burgon, Colin
Gerrard, Neil


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hanson, David


Coleman, Iain
Healey, John


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cox, Tom
Hendrick, Mark


Cranston, Ross
Hepburn, Stephen


Crausby, David
Heppell, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hesford, Stephen


Cummings, John
Hill, Keith






Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pearson, Ian


Hoey, Kate
Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pickthall, Colin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pike, Peter L


Howells, Dr Kim
Pond, Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pound, Stephen


Humble, Mrs Joan
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hurst, Alan
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prosser, Gwyn


Illsley, Eric
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Jenkins, Brian
Raynsford, Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)



Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Rowlands, Ted


Joyce, Eric
Ruane, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Savidge, Malcolm


Kemp, Fraser
Skinner, Dennis


Kidney, David
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith Angela (Basildon)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen



Lammy, David
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Soley, Clive


Leslie, Christopher
Southworth, Ms Helen


Levitt, Tom
Squire, Ms Rachel


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Steinberg, Gerry



Linton, Martin



Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Lock, David
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Love, Andrew
Stoate, Dr Howard


McAvoy, Thomas
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stringer, Graham


Macdonald, Calum
Stuart, Ms Gisela


McDonnell, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McFall, John
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McGuire, Mrs Anne



McIsaac, Shona
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


McNulty, Tony
Tipping, Paddy


Mactaggart, Fiona
Trickett, Jon


McWilliam, John
Truswell, Paul


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Mallaber, Judy
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Martlew, Eric
Tynan, Bill


Maxton, John
Walley, Ms Joan


Merron, Gillian
Ward, Ms Claire


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Wareing, Robert N


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Watts, David


Miller, Andrew
White, Brian


Moffatt, Laura
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Woodward, Shaun


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Woolas, Phil


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Wray, James


Naysmith, Dr Doug



O'Hara, Eddie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Olner, Bill
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Mr. Don Touhig.





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Ottaway, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Paisley, Rev Ian


Bercow, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)



Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Collins, Tim
Ruffley, David


Day, Stephen
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Donaldson, Jeffrey
Sanders, Adrian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hayes, John
Stunell, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Swayne, Desmond


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Keetch, Paul
Webb, Steve


Leigh, Edward



Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Öpik, Lembit
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, accordingly put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Authorised Officers) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COMPANIES

That the Companies and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 259) dated 1st February 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CIVIL AVIATION

That the draft Transport Act 2000 (Designation of Transferee) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

TERRORISM

That the draft Terrorism (Interviews) (Scotland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Carding) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:

Line 31, at end add—
'() The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
() The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
() The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mr. Pearson.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mr. Pearson.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 52, at the end insert the words:—

'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Pearson.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Motion made,

That—

(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and

(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Judy Mallaber be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Jon Trickett be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

Helme Chase Maternity Unit

Mr. Tim Collins: This petition represents a strong cross-party consensus in my constituency. Indeed, there is near unanimity among the population of south Cumbria, who want Helme Chase maternity unit to stay in place and to provide into the long-term future a full range of services for the whole community. I was delighted to meet earlier today those behind the petition, including Audrey Hawkes, the representative of the midwives at the unit, and Nicola Kaye, the Kendal mother who started the petition. Particular importance is attached to what the petition says about elective caesareans.
The petition states:
The Petition of the mothers, midwives, Families and residents of South Cumbria
Declares that the Helme Chase Maternity Unit is a much-loved public service which is admired and respected nationwide, provides a Quality of care which is not matched anywhere else in our area, and continues to be needed on the grounds of safety, travelling time, Public affection and local tradition.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage the Morecambe Bay Health Authority to heed public opinion in South Cumbria, Provide for a long-term secure Future for the Unit, and enable a full range of service including elective caesareans to continue to be provided there.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Free Television Licences

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I am delighted to present a petition signed by more than 6,500 residents of the west of Scotland, including more than 2,000 of my constituents. The Strathclyde Elderly Forum


collected the names on the petition, which calls on the Government to introduce free television licences for all pensioners over the age of 60.
The petition states:
The Petition of Strathclyde Elderly Forum
Declares that giving free TV licences to pensioners over 75 is to be welcomed but is discriminatory to pensioners under 75.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to grant free TV licences to all pensioners over 60.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Mobile Telecommunications Masts (Somerset)

Mr. David Heath: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by my constituent Mr. C. N. Barrow, of Styles close, Frome and by 676 other residents of Frome who are rightly concerned about the imposition of a mobile phone mast on an urban part of the town. They are anxious about the consequences for themselves and their families, as well as for the amenity value of the area. They draw attention to the need for proper planning controls on the erection of mobile phone masts.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of the citizens of Frome, Somerset sheweth:—
That mobile phone masts and base stations should not be sited amongst built-up areas, particularly not near houses or schools, due to the health implications, the loss of amenity, and the negative effect on property values.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take such measures as lie within its power to ensure that phone masts and base stations will always need 'full planning consent' and no longer enjoy 'permitted development rights'; that health concerns will be considered a valid reason for refusal of planning consent, and that the 'precautionary principle' be adopted and practised by the planning authorities.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Young Offenders Institutions

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: Young offenders institutions, such as Castington in my constituency, play a crucial role in the criminal justice system. Young offenders who serve periods of custody in those institutions have many years of life ahead of them when released. The staff do valuable work with difficult youngsters to attempt to steer them away from a long life of crime, which could have a great impact on their communities if they return to it on release.
Excellent work is done in Castington, especially in the Oswald unit, where there is a high ratio of staff to trainees. Particularly difficult youngsters are dealt with in those special conditions. Castington is one of the few parts of the prison estate that is currently under-used. There is spare capacity, a little more of which is currently used for trainees from further away. Its work is generally recognised as valuable in the Prison Service.
The problems that I shall describe have arisen as a secondary effect of an initiative that is designed to reduce reoffending: the detention and training order. It came into operation on 1 April 2000 through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I want to focus on the consequences of its introduction in Castington. It is widely acknowledged that the order is a worthwhile initiative, which will prove to be a good method of dealing with young offenders. However, some aspects of it have created serious problems in young offenders institutions.
Between April and October, 10 incidents of multiple cell damage occurred in Castington. A total of 32 cells were damaged, and many more incidents have occurred since then. In the first few months after the introduction of the detention and training order, there were 25 assaults on officers, mainly punches and kicks, which would not go to court, and were previously tackled under a governor's power to award extra days.
In September, an officer was assaulted by two trainees in education and attacked with a metal chair. That case went to court. One trainee received a two-month concurrent sentence, which had no effect on his time in custody, and the other received a conditional discharge. In October, a trainee threw boiling water over another trainee and got a conditional discharge. There was also a serious assault, which involved a trainee under section 53(2) of the Children Act 1989. That regime can present similar difficulties of providing a suitable punishment. Two or three alarms happen every afternoon in the large part of the institution that deals with those on detention and training orders.
Drugs policy is undermined by the absence of a real deterrent to misbehaviour and violence. That extends to failing the mandatory drugs test, which, when there is no deterrent, becomes simply a collection of statistics, not a means of influencing trainees' behaviour.
Newspaper reports detail similar occurrences in other young offenders institutions. They refer to a 700 per cent. increase in attacks on officers in one institution and a £200,000 bill for damage. At Huntercombe, it was reported that 16 cells a week were being damaged. At Stoke Heath, six cells a week were damaged. Has the


Minister assembled any figures on the problem? What has been the total cost to date of cell damage by DTO trainees? How many assaults on officers have DTO trainees committed?
In the past, governors would have awarded additional days for lesser offences. That power has gone. It is no longer possible for a governor to extend the sentence and use the threat of extension as a deterrent to misbehaviour in prison. The power could not be reintroduced in the old form without measures to ensure that the judicial process complied with the European convention on human rights. The loss of the additional days procedure has meant the loss of a major disincentive. However, the situation is more complicated than that under the detention and training order. Magistrates courts are presented with a problem. The maximum sentence that they can impose, including the community portion, cannot exceed the sentence that an adult would be given for the same offence.
For criminal damage valued at under £5,000, a detention and training order cannot be imposed at all. It is quite difficult—in fact, it is virtually impossible—to do more than £1,000 worth of damage to a cell. To do £5,000 worth of damage to a cell is pretty much beyond the means of a prisoner, even one using as much violence as he possibly could towards everything around him. The magistrates therefore end up imposing a conditional discharge, which is no deterrent whatsoever to the trainee.
Fines can be imposed, but what meaningful fine can one impose on a trainee who earns £5 a week? If one does impose fines, the bullies—often the people carrying out this violence—will get the money from other trainees. Their regime of fear and intimidation—of which cell violence and assaults on officers are all a part—will enable them to extract the money from other trainees, so the fine becomes meaningless to them.
The Secretary of State has powers to apply to a youth court for a late release from the custodial part of the sentence. Those powers—clearly rare, last-resort powers—are heavily circumscribed in the guidance that the Home Office has given the Prison Service. They involve a lengthy procedure and, crucially, the Home Office circular of 9 February on the detention and training order states:
Late release … should not be used as a means of supplementing disciplinary sanctions.
The circular goes on to state that recommendations for a late release should not be used as a disciplinary sanction.
Only overall progress towards the individual's objectives can bring about late—or, for that matter, early—release. That sends a clear signal that the mechanism of late release is not intended to be used in the way that the old sanctions were used to deter and punish people who behave in a wholly unacceptable way that is damaging to other trainees and officers and to the interests of the taxpayer, as in the case of this very expensive cell damage.
I am not aware of the Home Secretary's powers being used in the way that I have mentioned. If the Minister has any examples to suggest that the power is being used to help in the situation that I have described, I should be interested to hear them. That might represent a case for some revision of the circular, to make it clear that progress towards objectives must be discounted by behaviour of this kind. If someone wrecks his cell or

engages in acts of violence against other trainees or officers, that ought to be recorded as a failure to progress towards his objectives, and therefore represent a means of invoking the procedure.
I still believe that the procedure is slow and cumbersome. I shall not read out the enormous list of consultations and meetings that have to take place to bring it into effect. The feeling among prison officers is that, by the time it has been invoked, the offender will long since have left the institution and be half way through the non-custodial part of his sentence.
I understand the thinking behind the detention and training order, which is designed to ensure that the custody period and the community period are both carefully structured to develop the young person's understanding that they have done wrong, to change their attitude and to equip them to redirect their lives away from crime. The whole process—the time spent in custody and the time spent in the community under supervision—is meant to contribute to the same objectives and should, therefore, be planned so that such time is used and not spent idly sitting around for several months in an institution. The time should be structured, and there should be an overall plan. That is the essence of the scheme.
To accept that, I do not think that one has to accept that it is impossible to extend the sentence period as a deterrent in some circumstances. To have to face two or three more weeks of custody would not, if someone had behaved badly enough to have threatened the achievement of their objectives, undermine the essential process.
In the early stages, the Youth Justice Board may have got a bit hooked on the belief that it must in some way preserve the integrity of the concept of the detention and training order, rather than addressing some of the problems that have arisen under it. I do not think enough attention was given to the need for an effective deterrent to disruptive and violent behaviour, or to the needs of prison workers, including both discipline officers and education and other professional staff.
Prison workers must be able to maintain order and stop violent trainees from posing a danger to the rest. They must maintain an atmosphere in which trainees are not prevented by the violence and intimidation of other trainees from benefiting from their time in custody—but that is what will happen: those who are trying to meet the objectives that are part of their sentence will find their ability to do so disrupted if the atmosphere inside the institution is violent, and if they are themselves constantly subject to intimidation. It is much harder to resist a bully when an officer cannot be looking in one's direction than it is to worry about whether there is a mark against one's progress in the assessment that is made as part of a detention and training order.
I have been raising the issue for some time, which is why I felt it necessary to raise it here tonight. In a letter dated 29 August 2000, the Minister of State told me that the Youth Justice Board was
currently commissioning research into effective practice and into the effectiveness of reward and incentive systems. The results of these evaluations will be available later this year and will form the basis on which new practice guidance is based.
I am not sure whether that has actually happened. I am not sure whether the research has produced results that the Minister has seen, or whether, if it has, any new practice guidance has emerged. I certainly have not seen any yet.
What has been the result of the process? Certainly there has been no result so far that has been noticeable to prison officers, professional staff or governors. The concern felt by prison officers is shared by those of governor grade, who must try to maintain good order in their institutions. The difficulties that I have described are recognised at all levels in the service.
The ability to add to a sentence is surely needed for the worst cases, but if that mechanism is not to be used, the Minister and the Youth Justice Board must come up with alternatives. Mere withdrawal of privileges, or a few days without television, will not be enough. In any event, we are talking about people who wreck television sets, and everything else in sight, when an atmosphere of violence develops. Something that actually deters must be found. At present many prison officers are saying "They can do what they like and they still walk out of here on the same day"—and the force with which they say it is an indication of the deep concern that is felt.
Prison officers now say that they would be much happier working with those over 18, because more sanctions are available and the working atmosphere is better, or even with those under 18 who are on remand. Very few are being remanded to young offender institutions, but they too are not subject to the same regime. In the case of detention and training orders the sanctions have gone, or whatever little remains is not really intended to be used as a sanction as we normally understand the term.
Ministers and the Youth Justice Board must come up with an answer. If they do not, the value of detention and training orders will be undermined by a violent and intimidating atmosphere for all trainees, and the ability of prison officers to do the challenging job expected of them will also be constantly undermined by assaults, by the absence of officers who are off sick as a result of assaults, and by a feeling that they cannot exercise sufficient control to do the positive work that they value.
Prison officers achieve most when they are able to interact positively with the people in their charge. I have seen that happen, and I have seen its effectiveness. It should be borne in mind that many youngsters who are the subject of these orders have had great difficulty in relating to others in a civilised way. If the young people have had a family background, it may have been a severely disrupted one. Many of them may have been in and out of local authority homes and had no stable background. Others have been exploited, and many of them have been abused physically or sexually. Therefore, many of them have had a lifelong problem with relating to other people.
If those young people have prison officers who genuinely care for their welfare and relate positively to them, it would be a real advantage. However, that advantage cannot be deployed to the benefit of the youth justice system if there are not sanctions to prevent intimidation, violence and other pressures that make it very difficult for officers to perform the basic order and security aspects of their job, let alone the rehabilitative work in which they all want to engage.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I thank the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for his careful and measured approach not only to this subject, but to a range of home affairs issues about which he has very real knowledge, not least from the days when he served with such distinction as the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman on these issues.
The particular interest that hon. Members take in custodial institutions in their own constituencies is valued by the Home Office and by Ministers. It enables both the Government and the House to hear at first hand the experiences of prison officers and of constituents. I take very seriously the concerns that have been expressed to the right hon. Gentleman, as I certainly do those that have been expressed to me as I have visited institutions across the country. Although I have not yet had an opportunity to visit Castington, having heard his account of that institution's experience since the introduction of detention and training orders, and linking that with the experience of other institutions, I have been given occasion to reflect very carefully on the operational impact of the orders and all the limitations that he has outlined.
The good order and discipline of our custodial institutions are of the utmost importance. They are particularly important in institutions that cater for young offenders and their needs. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate, if rehabilitation of young people is to be effective, there has to be an ordered and structured environment in which the causes of their offending can be dealt with. Anything that undermines good order and discipline is a threat to that process.
We are therefore absolutely determined to bear down on any who seek to disrupt the good order and discipline of our establishments, by using the full force of the criminal law; by utilising such incentives as are available to us within the establishments; and also by recognising the important role of effective management in maintaining and delivering regimes, which should not be underestimated in creating good order and discipline within establishments. Variations between establishments' performance on those matters tells us something about the effectiveness or otherwise of the management and the strategies that the management has adopted to cope with a group of inmates who are problematical and volatile at the best of times.
I note what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said about assaults and other disorder at Castington. Especially worrying are assaults on staff, who are entitled to feel protected. We are determined that they will feel protected, but it is interesting to note that the total number of adjudications, including those for fighting, showed a significant reduction in the third quarter of 2000 compared with the first two quarters, when DTOs first came into force.
That should in no way lull us into a sense of false optimism or complacency, but the decline gives an impression of a service in which staff and governors across the whole youth offender estate are getting to grips with the problem. That is wholly admirable, and to be commended.
We have to examine how best to respond to the situation, and to do so in a way that does not undermine the rehabilitative impulse that propels and guides DTOs


and their implementation. The right hon. Member for Berwick?upon?Tweed referred to the survey and the research into these matters that was commissioned to be carried out by the Prison Service. I can tell him that the picture that is emerging is one in which there was a fairly high overall level of indiscipline, with some 8,300 adjudications—that is, four per trainee—in the first six months of the DTO. That bears out the experience that the right hon. Gentleman shared with the House.
The research shows that one quarter of the adjudications were for violent offences, and that three quarters were for other offences. It found marked variations between establishments in the pattern and incidence of offences. There has Peen a year-on-year increase in adjudications, but it is interesting to note that the pattern is uneven. The establishments at Brinsford, Castington, Huntercombe and Onley all experienced disproportionate increases in adjudications relative to population, although the House must bear in mind the caveat that I gave in relation to Castington. The establishments at Lancaster Farms, Thorn Cross and Wetherby showed absolute or proportional decreases, although it should be noted that Wetherby was not functional for most of the year. Werrington and Stoke Heath showed modest increases.
We need to reflect on the causes of that variation. Where good practice has been developed, it can usefully be spread as a means of addressing the problem outlined by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. The focus of the DTO is on a clearly structured sentence with an obvious end-point, which allows for sensible sentence planning and proper engagement with the young offender. The sentence aims to give the young person a better chance of living a crime-free life on release. It is therefore necessary for regimes to focus on rehabilitation and constructive behavioural change.
I doubt that there is any disagreement between the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the Government about the importance of that approach, nor about the importance of ensuring that any remedial action that we take to deal with the problem that he has identified does not undermine that focus.
As a result of the fact that extra days in custody as a disciplinary measure are not available for young offenders serving a detention and training order, there has been an increase in the incidence of disorder in some institutions. There undoubtedly is an element which has seen the absence of such a power as a green light for unacceptable behaviour. They would be mistaken, however, to believe that we lack the resolve to address the problem. We can and we will. We will expect the prosecuting authorities and sentencers to recognise the significance of the phenomenon that they are required to address.
I am bound to say that in some of the sentences handed down in the examples that the right hon. Gentleman gave, I am surprised—I put it no higher than that in this forum—by the leniency of the approach taken by

sentencers. There are some restrictions, which the right hon. Gentleman outlined, on the capacity of the courts to deal with incidents of juvenile criminal damage, but the assaults that he described, I would have expected a more condign punishment. We shall continue to bring home to sentencers the importance of their role in ensuring good order and discipline in these establishments.
Nevertheless, we have taken the view—and I am not, at this stage, persuaded to change it—that it would be premature to legislate to restore added days, and that the new juvenile regimes have not yet been given the opportunity to bed in. I feel that more time is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn about how disciplinary strategies, which are being taken forward with vigour by the Youth Justice Board and the Prison Service, are working and about the extent to which they are getting to grips with the problem. Castington is a good example of improvement, and I want us to build on it.
There is also the issue, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware, of deciding on any particular legislative course before the outcome of the current European convention on human rights challenge to powers concerning adults has been determined. I am absolutely committed, as are the Youth Justice Board and the Prison Service, to bringing about a number of non-statutory improvements. We are taking those forward as a matter of urgency. A comprehensive package of measures will focus on effective practice in Prison Service regimes and address the understandable concerns of staff with supportive measures to help to deal with situations in which the law may have been broken.
We believe that improvements can be made in the present law. The Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board have already started working on these. We intend to continue to develop strategies along those lines and to ensure that they are properly resourced and supported. We intend to publish research findings about positive staff and trainee attitudes to good reward and incentive schemes, to improve staff guidance and to provide consultancy support and training, particularly in restorative justice methods. That is being done at Wetherby. We also intend to build disciplinary compliance into more explicit sentence plans, and hence qualification for early or late release. All that can and will be done.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for enabling the House to have this short debate. We recognise the challenges that management and staff face in running custodial establishments. We are enormously grateful to them for all that they do. I give a clear commitment to ensuring that we continue to monitor the situation very carefully. There will be a vigorous and determined response from Prison Service management and from the Youth Justice Board—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to One o'clock.